[wsc981]

The stock value can still rise. Apple didn't pay dividends for a large part of its existence, yet especially after the year 2000 it would have been a great stock to own.

> Apple's long stretch of not paying any dividends reflected Jobs' opposition to them. During Jobs' second tenure at Apple from 1997 to 2012, the tech giant didn't pay a single dividend, even as its cash hoard ballooned to over $50 billion in 2011.

"The cash in the bank gives us tremendous security and flexibility," Jobs said in 2010.

But by 2012, and after Jobs had passed the reigns to Tim Cook, Apple finally reinitiated its dividend, making it the company's first dividend since 1995. The combination of Jobs' passing in 2011 and a cash hoard exceeding $100 billion in 2012 marked the beginning of a new era for Apple. Overnight, Apple became a formidable dividend stock -- and it looks like it's going to stay this way.

Source: https://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/29/apple-dividend-his...

[mrfredward]

And the underlying economic reason for Apple's shares to go up when it wasn't paying a dividend is that as Apple accumulated cash and became more profitable, the chances that it would pay a fat dividend someday (even if not in the near future) kept going up.

If companies didn't ever pay a dividend or buyback shares, the whole thing would be a ponzi scheme. The company takes money in an IPO, and then investors shuffle money among themselves to make it look like they have a profit, but it would collapse if people want to cash out. When companies eventually distribute profit to investors however, it becomes possible for cash to leave the system without all the paper value disappearing into thin air.

[Mikeb85]

Literally the point of markets is for companies to eventually pay back investors. A market without buybacks or dividends is a ponzi scheme.

[MiroF]

So many people who don't understand this.