What does “100% stock dividend” mean?
"A 100% stock dividend means that you get one share of the ""stock dividend"" for every share you own. For example, Google did this in 2014 when they gave all of their Class A shareholders one class C share for every Class A that they owned. If the 100% stock dividend is for the exactly the same stock, it is basically the same as a 2-for-1 stock split. If, however, the 100% stock dividend is to give you a different stock, then this is typically due to a corporate reorganization or demerger/spinoff event. Some countries have different tax treatments for the events - for example, with demergers in Australia, Class Rulings need to be obtained from the Australian Taxation Office to declare demergers as tax free.  A recent demerger was in Australia as South32, demerged from BHP Billiton. References: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/the-many-classes-of-google-stock/ http://www.bhpbilliton.com/investors/shareholderinfo/demerger-taxation-information" Simply put, 100% stock dividend is 1:1 or 1 for 1 bonus share, as explained above, if you held 100 shares after 1:1 bonus you would have 200 shares (100 original, another 100 as bonus). The impact on the stock price is that the price becomes 1/2 the price of the stock before bonus (supply has doubled). 1:1 bonus is nor exactly like a 2:1 / 2 for 1 stock split, in a split the face value if the share would also go down. In effect, any bonus share is not of any fundamental value to the shareholder, as the companies usually capitalize reserves from previous year/years this way as the value of the company does not change fundamentally. In effect the company is taking your money and giving you shares instead.
Scrip dividends are similar to stock splits. With a stock split, 100 shares can turn into 200 shares; with scrip dividends they might turn into 105 shares. There was a time that a rule of thumb stated your stock allocation should be 100-your age. That rule suggests that you are at 65%stock/35% bond/cash. If you are comfortable having this money 100% invested, the best advice would be dollar cost averaging, anything more specific would suggest market timing. Well, if one share cost $100 and the company needs to raise $10000, then the company will issue 100 shares for that price.  Right? However, say there's 100 shares out there now, then each share holder owns 1/100th of the company. Now the company will remain the same, but it's shared between 200 shareholders after the issuing of new shares.  That means each share holder now owns 1/200th of the company.  And hence only gets 1/200th of their earnings etc. ''that WE THE PEOPLE did not become owners of the PUBLICLY TRADED companies.'' This statement is inaccurate. The government received stocks, corporate bonds and the likes for every company they helped during the last financial statement. One article I read even suggest that we made a return on our investment with the capital gains , dividend and interest we received.  Also dividend is a form of income so you're not giving a new idea you are just changing a word.  How would you calculate those dividend? With what money would you pay such a program? For stock splits, let's say stock XYZ closed at 100 on February 5.  Then on February 6, it undergoes a 2-for-1 split and closes the day at 51.  In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 51 on Feb 6, but all of the closing prices for the previous days will be divided by 2.  So for Feb 5, it will say the closing price was 50 instead of 100. For dividends, let's say stock ABC closed at 200 on December 18.  Then on December 19, the stock increases in price by $2 but it pays out a $1 dividend.  In Yahoo's historical prices for XYZ, you will see that it closed at 200 on Dec 18 and 201 on Dec 19.  Yahoo adjusts the closing price for Dec 19 to factor in the dividend. Selling stock means selling a portion of ownership in your company.  Any time you issue stock, you give up some control, unless you're issuing non-voting stock, and even non-voting stock owns a portion of the company. Thus, issuing (voting) shares means either the current shareholders reduce their proportion of owernship, or the company reissues stock it held back from a previous offering (in which case it no longer has that stock available to issue and thus has less ability to raise funds in the future).  From Investopedia, for exmaple: Secondary offerings in which new shares are underwritten and sold dilute the ownership position of stockholders who own shares that were issued in the IPO. Of course, sometimes a secondary offering is more akin to Mark Zuckerberg selling some shares of Facebook to allow him to diversify his holdings - the original owner(s) sell a portion of their holdings off.  That does not dilute the ownership stake of others, but does reduce their share of course. You also give up some rights to dividends etc., even if you issue non-voting stock; of course that is factored into the price presumably (either the actual dividend or the prospect of eventually getting a dividend).  And hopefully more growth leads to more dividends, though that's only true if the company can actually make good use of the incoming funds. That last part is somewhat important.  A company that has a good use for new funds should raise more funds, because it will turn those $100 to $150 or $200 for everyone, including the current owners.  But a company that doesn't have a particular use for more money would be wasting those funds, and probably not earning back that full value for everyone. The impact on stock price of course is also a major factor and not one to discount; even a company issuing non-voting stock has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the interest of those non-voting shareholders, and so should not excessively dilute their value. 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 Shares used to be paper documents, but these days they are more commonly held electronically instead, although this partly depends on what country you're in. But it doesn't make any significant practical difference. Regardless of their physical form, a share simply signifies that you own a certain proportion of a company, and are thus entitled to receive any dividends that may be paid to the shareholders. To sell your shares, you need a broker -- there are scores of online ones who will sell them for a modest fee. Your tax forms are entirely dependent on the jurisdiction(s) that tax you, and since you've not told us where you are, no one can answer that. Stock acquired through a (non-taxable) stock dividend has the same holding period as the stock on which the dividend was paid. This is how capital shares in split capital investment trusts work they never get any dividend they just get the capital when the company is wound up Imagine a stock where the share price equals the earnings per share.  You pay say $100 for a share. In the next year, the company makes $100 per share. They can pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, and you still own the share. Next year, they make $100 per share, pay a $100 dividend, so now you have your money back, plus $100 in your pocket, plus you own the share. Wow. What an incredible investment. Check out the NASDAQ and NYSE websites(the exchange in which the stock is listed) for detailed information. Most of the websites which collate dividend payments generally have cash payments history only e.g. Dividata. And because a company has given stock dividends in the past doesn't guarantee such in the future, I believe you already know that. "What you are describing is a very specific case of the more general principle of how dividend payments work. Broadly speaking, if you own common shares in a corporation, you are a part owner of that corporation; you have the right to a % of all of that corporation's assets. The value in having that right is ultimately because the corporation will pay you dividends while it operates, and perhaps a final dividend when it liquidates at the end of its life. This is why your shares have value - because they give you ownership of the business itself. Now, assume you own 1k shares in a company with 100M shares, worth a total of $5B. You own 0.001% of the company, and each of your shares is worth $50; the total value of all your shares is $50k. Assume further that the value of the company includes $1B in cash. If the company pays out a dividend of $1B, it will now be only worth $4B. Your shares have just gone down in value by 20%! But, you have a right to 0.001% of the dividend, which equals a $10k cash payment to you. Your personal holdings are now $40k worth of shares, plus $10k in cash. Except for taxes, financial theory states that whether a corporation pays a dividend or not should not impact the value to the individual shareholder.  The difference between a regular corporation and a mutual fund, is that the mutual fund is actually a pool of various investments, and it reports a breakdown of that pool to you in a different way. If you own shares directly in a corporation, the dividends you receive are called 'dividends', even if you bought them 1 minute before the ex-dividend date. But a payment from a mutual fund can be divided between, for example, a flow through of dividends, interest, or a return of capital. If you 'looked inside' your mutual fund you when you bought it, you would see that 40% of its value comes from stock A, 20% comes from stock B, etc etc., including maybe 1% of the value coming from a pile of cash the fund owns at the time you bought your units.  In theory the mutual fund could set aside the cash it holds for current owners only, but then it would need to track everyone's cash-ownership on an individual basis, and there would be thousands of different 'unit classes' based on timing. For simplicity, the mutual fund just says ""yes, when you bought $50k in units, we were 1/3 of the year towards paying out a $10k dividend. So of that $10k dividend, $3,333k of it is assumed to have been cash at the time you bought your shares. Instead of being an actual 'dividend', it is simply a return of capital.""  By doing this, the mutual fund is able to pay you your owed dividend [otherwise you would still have the same number of units but no cash, meaning you would lose overall value], without forcing you to be taxed on that payment. If the mutual fund didn't do this separate reporting, you would have paid $50k to buy $46,667k of shares and $3,333k of cash, and then you would have paid tax on that cash when it was returned to you. Note that this does not ""falsely exaggerate the investment return"", because a return of capital is not earnings; that's why it is reported separately.  Note that a 'close-ended fund' is not a mutual fund, it is actually a single corporation. You own units in a mutual fund, giving you the rights to a proportion of all the fund's various investments. You own shares in a close-ended fund, just as you would own shares in any other corporation. The mutual fund passes along the interest, dividends, etc. from its investments on to you; the close-ended fund may pay dividends directly to its shareholders, based on its own internal dividend policy." A company's Return on Equity (ROE) is its net income divided by its shareholder's equity.  The shareholder's equity is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and is not dependent on the stock price. What it takes to have a ROE over 100% is to have the income be greater than the equity.  This might happen for a variety of reasons, but one way a high ROE happens is if the shareholder's equity (the divisor) is small, which can occur if past losses have eroded the company's capital (the original invested cash and retained earnings).  If the equity has become a small value, the income for some period might exceed it, and so the ROE would be over 100%. Operating margin is not closely related to ROE.  Although operating income is related to net income, to calculate the margin you divide by sales, which is completely unrelated to shareholder's equity.  So there is no relationship with ROE to be expected.  Operating margin is primarily dependent on market conditions, and can be substantially different in different industries. "Google is a poor example since it doesn't pay a dividend (and doesn't expect to), so let's use another example with easy numbers. Company X has a stock price of $100, and it pays a quarterly dividend (many companies do). Let's assume X pays a dividend of $4. Dividends are always quoted in annual terms, as is dividend yield. When a company says that they pay ""quarterly dividends,"" it means that the company pays dividends every quarter, or every 3 months.  BUT, if a company has a $4 dividend, you will not receive $4 every quarter per share. You will receive $4/4 = $1 per share, every quarter. So over the course of a fiscal year, or 4 quarters, you'll get $1 + $1 + $1 + $1 = $4 per share, which is the annual dividend.  The dividend yield = annual dividend/stock price. So in this case, company X's div. yield will be $4/$100 * 100 = 4%. It's important to note that this is the annual yield. To get the quarterly yield, you must divide by 4. It's also important to note that the yield fluctuates based on stock price, but the dividend payment stays constant unless the company states an announcement. For a real world example, consider Intel Corp. (TICKER: INTC) http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=INTC The share price is currently $22.05, and the dividend is $0.84. This makes the annual yield = $0.84/$22.05 * 100 = 3.80%. Intel pays a quarterly dividend, so you can expect to receive $0.21 every quarter for every share of Intel that you own. Hope that clears it up!"