this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
670 points (98.4% liked)

Microblog Memes

5787 readers
2646 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -1 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

This is the stupidest thing I've read in a very long time.

Why do you think it works like that?

[–] ammonium@lemmy.world 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

Because that's how the stock market works, the price of a stock is the current value of assets (including cash) + expected earnings (with some correction factors for risk and time). If the company pays out $x of cash it's $x worth less. You might not always see it it the stock price because expected future dividend payments are also already priced in.

How do you think it works?

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee -2 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Why would anyone buy a stock that will never pay a dividend? The company is worth money because they pay a dividend, not despite it.

[–] ammonium@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

There are plenty of companies that never pay dividends, yet people buy them.

II struggled with this as well for a while. You can look at it this way, they are worth money because they could pay dividends, but they don't actually have to. Your bar of gold is worth a certain amount of money equal to the money you could sell it for, and your money is worth something because you could buy something with it.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)