[imtringued]

If the first lemonade stand did a stock buyback it would be worth just as much as the second lemonade stand. If the first lemonade stand issues a dividend and holders of the stock automatically buy more stock, then the share price will also be exactly the same as the second lemonade stand.

Why do companies do dividends or stock buybacks? Because they think investors can do better investments elsewhere with the money.

[asdff]

What about a third lemonade stand that took their huge sack of cash and instead paid their employees six figures? This would be the stand that is worth less to the shareholder, as that money in the sack has left the lemonade stand entirely and is now being spent by the employee elsewhere in the economy with a portion of it used for different taxes. This is also the stand that is worth the most to the public, as this sack of cash is no longer kept under a lemonade stand and is instead being used to pay sales taxes, property taxes, and income taxes. The fallacy is that many believe corporations are like this third stand, when really they are much more like the first or the second, where it is better for the shareholder and worse for the public to keep as high of a portion of money out of taxable pockets as possible and to pay as little as possible for labor.

[hntrader]

But that's marked to market value.

The shareholder still has to receive a dividend or sell that higher priced stock, which are both taxable events.

So I still don't get it.