The average P/E ratio of U.S. stocks is 38, meaning if the value of a stock really is primarily based on its ability to produce an external source of revenue, it would take 38 years for an investor to recoup the cost of a share of a company. When you adjust for 2% inflation, it would take 117 years for someone to recoup the cost.
Since that exceeds the lifespan of well over 99% of the population, it must follow that people are not investing in stocks because they expect the company to produce some external source of revenue that will eventually repay the principle. There are a host of complex reasons why people invest including wealth preservation, a desire to support a company they are interested in, speculation, a belief that investing is smart and the right thing to do... these are all fine reasons, but they have little to do with some kind of fundamental valuation that some people think stocks intrinsically have.
The vast majority of gains from the stock market have next to nothing to do with external sources of revenue.
> if the value of a stock really is primarily based on its ability to produce an external source of revenue, it would take 38 years for an investor to recoup the cost of a share of a company
Since a minority of stocks return a dividend, then the holder of said stock likely never sees a cent of company earnings. Time duration to recoup cost of stock by P/E is NaN.
The vast majority of gains from the stock market have to do with inability to invest in new ideas (on both supply and demand side).
What other ways could you benefit? Imagine that you had no expectation of selling your share for a higher price in the future, then what other way is there to benefit?
You have a shareholder vote, okay but the percentage of shareholders who actually vote is roughly 9%. The only people doing the voting are large institutions, not individuals:
Dividends have no net effect on how much you earn from a share. If a stock is currently priced at X and then pays out a dividend of Y, the price of the stock decreases by Y so that there is no overall effect on the value.
The reason for this can be understood in many different ways, but one way I like to look at it is if paying a dividend had no effect on the price of a stock, then one could in principle buy a share of the stock at a price of X just before the dividend is paid and then sell the stock at a price of X just after the dividend is paid just as you describe, effectively pocketing the dividend and earning an almost risk free return.
Of course in practice we know that on average the price of a stock drops by the exact amount of the dividend paid, and hence collecting a dividend has no overall effect on the value of a stock.
It is exactly what you described and my explanation focuses on a specific scenario to make it very clear why your reasoning is flawed. You can't just assert that it's possible to sell a stock in the future for the same price that you bought it for and that will magically come true, you have to observe what actually happens in reality and whether reality is consistent with your beliefs.
To better familiarize yourself with the literature, perhaps you can start with this seminal paper produced by the Federal Reserve:
It looks at both the short term and long term impact of dividends and shows precisely that the marginal price of a stock drops by the amount of the dividend, meaning your premise that you can simply just sell the stock at a future date for the same price you bought it for is just not supported by the facts.
Whether you hold the stock and collect multiple dividends for 10 years or 10 days, the fundamental principle is the same: a stock with a marginal price of X that pays a dividend of Y will on average decrease in price by Y. Dividends produce no change in the overall net value of a portfolio, all a dividend does is convert one form of value into another, but no increase in value is ever produced.
Please provide an example of a stock that has a price that behaves the way you’ve described. That paper is talking specifically about ex-dividend dates, not long term behavior.
I’ve actually held ibm stock for years, and it has paid dividends and stayed above my initial purchase price nearly the whole time. That seems to fly in the face of your claims.
Since that exceeds the lifespan of well over 99% of the population, it must follow that people are not investing in stocks because they expect the company to produce some external source of revenue that will eventually repay the principle. There are a host of complex reasons why people invest including wealth preservation, a desire to support a company they are interested in, speculation, a belief that investing is smart and the right thing to do... these are all fine reasons, but they have little to do with some kind of fundamental valuation that some people think stocks intrinsically have.
The vast majority of gains from the stock market have next to nothing to do with external sources of revenue.