What is the difference between a scrip dividend and a stock split?
Investopedia has a good definition. Stock dividends are similar to cash dividends; however, instead of cash, a company pays out stock. Stock splits occur when a company perceives that its stock price may be too high. Stock splits are usually done to increase the liquidity of the stock (more shares outstanding) and to make it more affordable for investors to buy regular lots (a regular lot = 100 shares). 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. Most corporations have a limit on the number of shares that they can issue, which is written into their corporate charter.  They usually sell a number that is fewer than the maximum authorized number so that they have a reserve for secondary offerings, employee incentives, etc. In a scrip dividend, the company is distributing authorized shares that were not previously issued.  This reduces the number of shares that it has to sell in the future to raise capital, so it reduces the assets of the company. In a split, every share (including the authorized shares that haven't been distributed) are divided.  This results in more total shares (which then trade at a price that's roughly proportional to the split), but it does not reduce the assets of the company.
During a stock split the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding.  Typically a stock splits to lower its price per share.  Sometimes if a company's value is falling it will do a reverse split where X shares will be exchanged for Y shares.  This is typically done to avoid being de-listed from an exchange if the price per share falls below a certain threshold, usually $1.  Again the only thing changing is the number of shares outstanding.  A 20 for 1 reverse split means for every 20 shares outstanding the shareholder will be granted one new share. Example X Co. has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $100 per share.  It does a 1 for 10 split.  Now there are 10,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10 per share. Example Y Co has 1,000,000 shares outstanding for a price of $1 per share.  It does a 10 for 1 reverse split.  Now there are 100,000 shares outstanding for a price of $10. Quickly looking at the news for ASTI it looks like it underwent a 20 for 1 reverse split.  You should probably look at your statements and ask your broker how the arithmetic worked in your case. Investopedia links for Reverse Stock Split and Stock Split "If I held stock in these companies yesterday, would I have profited by these gains? No.  For DZSI, your 5 shares at $1.10 would now be 1 share at $5.50, so you would have the same total amount.  For SGY, they closed at $6.95, and opened at $32.80, so your five shares at $6.95 would now be one share at $32.80, so you would have actually lost money (not purely because of the split, but because the ""new"" shares are trading lower then the expected 1:5 split price).  A split in general does not affect market cap (how much your total shares are worth) but there may be residual effects that cause the market value to fluctuate after a split that affect the price." "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." Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont.  Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1 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. "Ordinarily a stock split increases all shareholders' share counts, so that there is no change in anybody's voting power.  For example, if you owned 1% of the company before the split, after the split you now have twice as many shares, but there are now twice as many shares outstanding, so you still own 1% of the company.  Also, stock splits are not ordinarily ""triggered"".  Usually they happen when the board decides that for one reason or another it's desirable to increase the number of shares in circulation, which causes the price of each share to decrease proportionally.   I'm not familiar with the show, and in particular I don't know what the action is that the character being addressed is thinking of taking, but it sounds like they are describing something akin to a ""poison pill"".  In these arrangements, the ""pill"" is triggered by some predefined condition, say a party acquiring shares in excess of a defined threshold.  What typically happens is that shareholders other than the ones who triggered the pill get a chance to buy shares at a substantial discount, thereby diluting the shares of the party that triggered it.  Because the other shareholders have to buy their additional shares, albeit at a discount, and because it applies only to certain shares, it's not really a split, but it's close enough that the writers of the show may have felt it was worth using the term that is more familiar to the public." "From Wikipedia - Stock: The stock (also capital stock) of a corporation constitutes the equity   stake of its owners. It represents the residual assets of the company   that would be due to stockholders after discharge of all senior claims   such as secured and unsecured debt. Stockholders' equity cannot be   withdrawn from the company in a way that is intended to be detrimental   to the company's creditors Wikipedia - Dividend: A dividend is a payment made by a corporation to its shareholders,   usually as a distribution of profits. When a corporation earns a   profit or surplus, it can re-invest it in the business (called   retained earnings), and pay a fraction of this reinvestment as a   dividend to shareholders. Distribution to shareholders can be in cash   (usually a deposit into a bank account) or, if the corporation has a   dividend reinvestment plan, the amount can be paid by the issue of   further shares or share repurchase. Wikipedia - Bond: In finance, a bond is an instrument of indebtedness of the bond issuer   to the holders. It is a debt security, under which the issuer owes the   holders a debt and, depending on the terms of the bond, is obliged to   pay them interest (the coupon) and/or to repay the principal at a   later date, termed the maturity date. Interest is usually payable   at fixed intervals (semiannual, annual, sometimes monthly). Very often   the bond is negotiable, i.e. the ownership of the instrument can be   transferred in the secondary market. This means that once the transfer   agents at the bank medallion stamp the bond, it is highly liquid on   the second market. Thus, stock is about ownership in the company, dividends are the payments those owners receive, which may be additional shares or cash usually, and bonds are about lending money. Stocks are usually bought through brokers on various stock exchanges generally. An exception can be made under ""Employee Stock Purchase Plans"" and other special cases where an employee may be given stock or options that allow the purchase of shares in the company through various plans. This would apply for Canada and the US where I have experience just as a parting note. This is without getting into Convertible Bond that also exists: In finance, a convertible bond or convertible note or convertible debt   (or a convertible debenture if it has a maturity of greater than 10   years) is a type of bond that the holder can convert into a specified   number of shares of common stock in the issuing company or cash of   equal value. It is a hybrid security with debt- and equity-like   features.  It originated in the mid-19th century, and was used by   early speculators such as Jacob Little and Daniel Drew to counter   market cornering. Convertible bonds are most often issued by   companies with a low credit rating and high growth potential." "You are correct that a share of stock in a company has zero intrinsic value.  Even if the company typically pays dividends, there's no guarantee that it will continue to do so.  A share's only worth comes from: So that's one step better than a Ponzi scheme, because in a Ponzi scheme there's not actually any value present behind the scenes, making option (2) literally impossible. In this way company stock is similar to paper money.  It's only worth something because people believe it's worth something. Slightly better than company stock is company bonds.  Since a bond is a contract between you and the company, if the company should go out of business then bondholders at least get to stand near the front of the line when the company's assets are liquidated. I work in finance, and the vast majority of my colleagues agree that the secondary stock market (what the average citizen simply calls ""the stock market"") is a giant confidence game.  And yet it's so profitable to believe in the value of equities the way everyone else does, that we all happily pretend these ones and zeroes we move around have actual value." I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split.  That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004.  It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely).  They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online.  It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant. The dividend is what represents your ownership in the CU.  The APY is a calculated figure that will help you compare apples to apples the return of the investment from many vendors and many types. (I think you CU might have had two different people writing that portion of the website, because the comparisons pages don't make that clear, and the pages don't layout the same way.) The stock split, it is similar to what happened to Apple a little while back. When Google split 2 to 1, it means that each share holder got 2 shares for each 1 share they had and each share was 1/2 the price. This is not what you normally get told, including by partners who were there at the time.  What IPO were you referring to? Andersen Consulting / Accenture's IPO was some time after the split.  Edit: spun off? It wasn't what you'd call a friendly split Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share. It's not quite identical, due to fees, stock rights, and reporting & tax obligations.  But the primary difference is that a person could have voting rights in a company while maintaining zero economic exposure to the company, sometimes known as empty voting. As an abstract matter, it's identical in that you reduce your financial exposure whether you sell your stock or short it.  So the essence of your question is fundamentally true.  But the details make it different.  Of course there are fee differences in how your broker will handle it, and also margin requirements for shorting.  Somebody playing games with overlapping features of ownership, sales, and purchases, may have tax and reporting obligations for straddles, wash sales, and related issues.  A straight sale is generally less complicated for tax reporting purposes, and a loss is more likely to be respected than someone playing games with sales and purchases. But the empty voting issue is an important difference.  You could buy stock with rights such as voting, engage in other behavior such as forwards, shorts, or options to negate your economic exposure to the stock, while maintaining the right to vote.  Of course in some cases this may have to be disclosed or may be covered by contract, and most people engaging in stock trades are unlikely to have meaningful voting power in a public company.  But the principle is still there. As explained in the article by Henry Hu and Bernie Black: Hedge funds have been especially creative in decoupling voting rights from economic ownership. Sometimes they hold more votes than economic ownership - a pattern we call empty voting. In an extreme situation, a vote holder can have a negative economic interest and, thus, an incentive to vote in ways that reduce the company's share price. Sometimes investors hold more economic ownership than votes, though often with morphable voting rights - the de facto ability to acquire the votes if needed. We call this situation hidden (morphable) ownership because the economic ownership and (de facto) voting ownership are often not disclosed. A one year period of study - Stock A trades at $100, and doesn't increase in value, but has $10 in dividends over the period.  Stock B starts at $100, no dividend, and ends at $105. However you account for this, it would be incorrect to ignore stock A's 10% return over the period.  To flip to a real example, MoneyChimp shows the S&P return from Jan 1980 to Dec 2012 as +3264% yet, the index only rose from 107.94 to 1426.19 or +1221%.  The error expands with greater time and larger dividends involved, a good analysis won't ignore any dividends or splits.