[AznHisoka]

What about stocks with no dividends (which constitutes the vast majority)? By your definition, only dividend investing and rental property investing is true investing.

I'm not disagreeing with you. In fact I almost agree with you, but your argument fails for most stocks.

[umanwizard]

Stocks with no dividends have some probability of paying a dividend (or doing a buyback) in the future. If you could prove that a company will never pay a dividend or do a buyback then its value would be zero.

[tony101]

What about Berkshire Hathaway? They said they wouldn't pay dividends.

[umanwizard]

You don’t know they never will forever. Buffet will die someday and his successor might decide to pay a dividend.

[AznHisoka]

this is turning to a very insane argument.. So if Buffet signs a iron clad legal contract that says no dividends ever for the duration of his company, it means the stock is worth 0?

[umanwizard]

If such a thing were possible, then yes, it would.

[bertjk]

If the dividend-less companies are profitable, then you can still expect the increased value to get returned to you through stock buybacks, or an eventual dividend or acquisition of the company in the future.

[ckinnan]

The vast majority of mainstream stocks PAY dividends-- in fact about 420 of the S&P 500.

[brokensegue]

stocks without them re-invest the profits and that re-investing increases the share price.