Why do many British companies offer a scrip dividend option in lieu of cash?
There are quite a few reasons that a company may choose to pay dividends rather than hold cash [increasing the share value].   Of couse there are equally other set of reasons why a company may not want to give dividends and hold on to cash. Related question here Please explain the relationship between dividend amount, stock price, and option value?
Some investors (pension funds or insurance companies) need to pay out a certain amount of money to their clients. They need cash on a periodical basis, and thus prefer dividend paying stock more. "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." Shareholders can [often] vote for management to pay dividends Shareholders are sticking around if they feel the company will be more valuable in the future, and if the company is a target for being bought out. Greater fool theory Typically, preferred shares come with one or both different benefits - a disproportionate share of votes, say 10 votes per share vs the normal 1, or a preferred dividend.  The vote preference is great for the owner(s) looking to go public, but not lose control of the company. Say, I am a Walton (of Walmart fame) and when I went public, I sold 80% of the (1000 share total) company. But, in creating the share structure, 20% of shares were assigned 10 votes each. 800 shares now trade with 800 votes, 200 shares have 10 votes each or 2000 votes. So, there are still the 1000 shares but 2800 votes. The 20% of shares now have 2000/2800 or 71% of the total votes. So, my shares are just less than half ownership, but over 78% of votes.  Preferred dividend is as simple as that, buy Stock A for ownership, or (same company) Stock A preferred shares which have ownership and $1/yr dividend.  Edited to show a bit more math. I use a simple example to call out a total 1000 shares. The percentages would be the same for a million or billion shares if 20% were a 10 vote preferred. My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company. Numerous studies have actually shown that companies who pay dividends are much more reckless financially with returning capital to shareholders because they want to save face and maintain/grow the dividend.  Buybacks are much more flexible and probably lead to better capital allocation decisions, in my opinion. The shareholders have a claim on the profits, but they may prefer that claim to be exercised in ways other than dividend payments. For example, they may want the company to invest all of its profits in growth, or they may want it to buy back shares to increase the value of the remaining shares, especially since dividends are generally taxed as income while an increase in the share price is generally taxed as a capital gain, and capital gains are often taxed at a lower rate than income. "A company has 100,000 shares and 100,000 unexercised call options (company issued). Share price and strike price both at $1. What country is this related to?   I ask because, in the US, most people I know associate a ""call"" option with the instrument that is equivalent to 100 shares.   So 100,000 calls would be 10,000,000 shares, which exceeds the number of shares you're saying the company has.   I don't know if that means you pulled the numbers out of thin air, or whether it means you're thinking of a different type of option? Perhaps you meant incentive stock options meant to be given to employees?  Each one of those is equivalent to a single share.  They just aren't called ""call options"". In the rest of my answer, I'm going to assume you meant stock options. I assume the fact that these options exist will slow any price increases on the underlying shares due to potential dilution? I don't think the company can just create stock options without creating the underlying shares in the first place.  Said another way, a more likely scenario is that company creates 200,000 shares and agrees to float 50% of them while reserving the other 50% as the pool for incentive employee stock.  They then choose to give the employees options on the stock in the incentive pool, rather than outright grants of the stock, for various reasons.  (One of which is being nice to the employees in regards to taxes since there is no US tax due at grant time if the strike price is the current price of the underlying stock.) An alternative scenario when the company shares are liquidly traded is that the company simply plans to buy back shares from the market in order to give employees their shares when options are exercised.  In this case, the company needs the cash on hand, or cash flow to take money from, to buy those shares at current prices. Anyway, in either case, there is no dilution happening WHEN the options get exercised.  Any dilution happened before or at the time the options were created.   Meaning, the total number of shares in the company was already pre-set at an earlier time.  As a result, the fact that the options exist in themselves will not slow price changes on the stock. However, price changes will be impacted by the total float of shares in the company, or the impact to cash flow if the company has to buy shares to redeem its option commitments.   This is almost the same thing you're asking about, but it is technically different as to timing. If this is the case, can this be factored into any option pricing models like black-scholes? You're including the effect just by considering the total float of shares and net profits from cash flow when doing your modelling." Am I correct in understanding that a Scrip Dividend involves the issue of new shares instead of the purchase of existing shares? Yes. Instead of paying a cash dividend to shareholders, the company grants existing shareholders new shares at a previously determined price. This allows shareholders who join the program to obtain new shares without incurring transaction costs that would normally occur if they purchased these shares in the market. Does this mean that if I don't join this program, my existing shares will be diluted every time a Scrip Dividend is paid? Yes, because the number of shares has increased, so the relative percentage of shares in the company you hold will decrease if you opt-out of the program. The price of the existing shares will adjust so that the value of the company is essentially unchanged (similar to a stock split), but the number of outstanding shares has increased, so the relative weight of your shares declines if you opt out of the program.  What is the benefit to the company of issuing Scrip Dividends? Companies may do this to conserve their cash reserves. Also, by issuing a scrip dividend, corporations could avoid the Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT) that they would normally pre-pay on their distributions. Since the abolition of the ACT in 1999, preserving cash reserves is the primary reason for a company to issue scrip dividends, as far as I know. Whether or not scrip dividends are actually a beneficial strategy for a company is debatable (this looks like a neat study, even though I've only skimmed it).  The issue may be beneficial to you, however, because you might receive a tax benefit. You can sell the scrip dividend in the market; the capital gain from this sale may fall below the annual tax-free allowance for capital gains, in which case you don't pay any capital gains tax on that amount. For a cash dividend, however, there isn't a minimum taxable amount, so you would owe dividend tax on the entire dividend (and may therefore pay more taxes on a cash 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. In fact just because a company pays a dividend, would you still buy it if the share price kept decreasing year after year? Lets put it this way: Company A makes record profits year after year, continually keeps beating market expectations, its share price keeps going up, but it pays no dividend instead reinvests its profits to continually grow the business. Company B pays a dividend instead of reinvesting to grow the business, it has been surprising the market on the downside for a few years now, it has had some profit warnings lately and its share price has consistently been dropping for over a year. Which company would you be interested in buying out of the two? I know I would be interested in buying Company A, and I would definitely stay away from Company B. Company A may or may not pay dividends in the future, but if Company B continues on this path it will soon run out of money to pay dividends. Most market gains are made through capital gains rather than dividends, and most people invest in the hope the shares they buy go up in price over time. Dividends can be one attractant to investors but they are not the only one. The upvoted answers fail to note that dividends are the only benefit that investors collectively receive from the companies they invest in. If you purchase a share for $100, and then later sell it for $150, you should note that there is always someone that purchases the same share for $150. So, you get $150 immediately, but somebody else has to pay $150 immediately. So, investors collectively did not receive any money from the transaction. (Yes, share repurchase can be used instead of dividends, but it can be considered really another form of paying dividends.) The fair value of a stock is the discounted value of all future dividends the stock pays. It is so simple! This shows why dividends are important. Somebody might argue that many successful companies like Berkshire Hathaway do not pay dividend. Yes, it is true that they don't pay dividend now but they will eventually have to start paying dividend. If they reinvest potential dividends continuously, they will run out of things to invest in after several hundred years has passed. So, even in this case the value of the stock is still the discounted value of all future dividends. The only difference is that the dividends are not paid now; the companies will start to pay the dividends later when they run out of things to invest in. It is true that in theory a stock could pay an unsustainable amount of dividend that requires financing it with debt. This is obviously not a good solution. If you see a company that pays dividend while at the same time obtaining more cash from taking more debt or from share issues, think twice whether you want to invest in such a company. What you need to do to valuate companies fairly is to estimate the amount of dividend that can sustain the expected growth rate. It is typically about 60% of the earnings, because a part of the earnings needs to be invested in future growth, but the exact figure may vary depending on the company. Furthermore, to valuate a company, you need the expected growth rate of dividends and the discount rate. You simply discount all future dividends, correcting them up by the expected dividend growth rate and correcting them down by the discount rate. Often buyouts are paid for by the buyer issuing a load of new shares and giving those to the seller to pay them. Sometimes it could be all shares, sometimes all cash, or any mix in-between. If you believe in the future of the buyers' business model, you'll often get a load of shares at a discounted rate this way. If you do not believe in the buyers' future then you're getting shares that you think may be worth little or nothing some day, so cash would be better. "This answer will expand a bit on the theory. :) A company, as an entity, represents a pile of value. Some of that is business value (the revenue stream from their products) and some of that is assets (real estate, manufacturing equipment, a patent portfolio, etc). One of those assets is cash. If you own a share in the company, you own a share of all those assets, including the cash. In a theoretical sense, it doesn't really matter whether the company holds the cash instead of you. If the company adds an extra $1 billion to its assets, then people who buy and sell the company will think ""hey, there's an extra $1 billion of cash in that company; I should be willing to pay $1 billion / shares outstanding more per share to own it than I would otherwise."" Granted, you may ultimately want to turn your ownership into cash, but you can do that by selling your shares to someone else. From a practical standpoint, though, the company doesn't benefit from holding that cash for a long time. Cash doesn't do much except sit in bank accounts and earn pathetically small amounts of interest, and if you wanted pathetic amounts of interests from your cash you wouldn't be owning shares in a company, you'd have it in a bank account yourself. Really, the company should do something with their cash. Usually that means investing it in their own business, to grow and expand that business, or to enhance profitability. Sometimes they may also purchase other companies, if they think they can turn a profit from the purchase. Sometimes there aren't a lot of good options for what to do with that money. In that case, the company should say, ""I can't effectively use this money in a way which will grow my business. You should go and invest it yourself, in whatever sort of business you think makes sense."" That's when they pay a dividend. You'll see that a lot of the really big global companies are the ones paying dividends - places like Coca-Cola or Exxon-Mobil or what-have-you. They just can't put all their cash to good use, even after their growth plans. Many people who get dividends will invest them in the stock market again - possibly purchasing shares of the same company from someone else, or possibly purchasing shares of another company. It doesn't usually make a lot of sense for the company to invest in the stock market themselves, though. Investment expertise isn't really something most companies are known for, and because a company has multiple owners they may have differing investment needs and risk tolerance. For instance, if I had a bunch of money from the stock market I'd put it in some sort of growth stock because I'm twenty-something with a lot of savings and years to go before retirement. If I were close to retirement, though, I would want it in a more stable stock, or even in bonds. If I were retired I might even spend it directly. So the company should let all its owners choose, unless they have a good business reason not to. Sometimes companies will do share buy-backs instead of dividends, which pays money to people selling the company stock. The remaining owners benefit by reducing the number of shares outstanding, so they own more of what's left. They should only do this if they think the stock is at a fair price, or below a fair price, for the company: otherwise the remaining owners are essentially giving away cash. (This actually happens distressingly often.) On the other hand, if the company's stock is depressed but it subsequently does better than the rest of the market, then it is a very good investment. The one nice thing about share buy-backs in general is that they don't have any immediate tax implications for the company's owners: they simply own a stock which is now more valuable, and can sell it (and pay taxes on that sale) whenever they choose." "As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (""ownership"") to people who buy stocks from it.  It's not ""ownership"" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way.  You own part of the company.  If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner.  In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing).  After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company.  The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock.  The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership.  If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings.  Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future.   What do the prospects look like for this industry?  A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific.  Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate?  Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive?  If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced.   So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"".  Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future." Firstly a stock split is easy, for example each unit of stock is converted into 10 units.  So if you owned 1% of the company before the stock split, you will still own 1% after the stock split, but have 10 times the number of shares.   The company does not pay out any money when doing this and there is no effect on tax for the company or the share holder. Now onto stock dividend… When a company make a profit, the company gives some of the profit to the share holders as a dividend; this is normally paid in cash.  An investor may then wish to buy more shares in the company using the money from the dividend.      However buying shares used to have a large cost in broker charges etc. Therefore some companies allowed share holders to choose to have the dividend paid as shares.   The company buys enough of their own shares to cover the payout, only having one set of broker charges and then sends the correct number of shares to each share holder that has opted for a stock dividend.  (Along with any cash that was not enough to buy a complete share.) This made since when you had paper shares and admin costs where high for stock brokers.   It does not make sense these days. A stock dividend is taxed as if you had been paid the dividend in cash and then brought the stock yourself.