Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I was making the point that even stocks that don't pay dividends are still valuable in so much as the company and its assets are valuable.

Your comments are all about the relative value of a stock versus other alternative investments. I don't disagree with anything you wrote.

The point I was trying to make – and I have a good bit of experience now that it's either a really subtle point or it's so wrong (or 'not even wrong') that no one knows how to address it 'directly' – is that, given a stock that:

1. "gives you no profits" 2. Provides "no income from dividends" [Note that this is a separate item in the comment to which I originally replied!] 3. Provides "no voice in how its [company is] run"

The stock is still 'valuable' – apart from any value due to "the greater fool theory".

What I was not claiming is that stock is a 'good value' or a sound investment at its current price(s). I was claiming that if, e.g. someone gave you shares, you shouldn't (necessarily) give them away to someone else. Maybe you have no use for a shovel, or a house somewhere where you neither live nor travel to, but they're not literally of no value even tho you wouldn't buy them yourself at whatever price you could find.



Oh, I see. We all just assumed you didn't know what dividends were.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: