ratelimitsteve parent
the owner of a company gets the profits, and that's what he lives off of. investors in public companies get a share of the profit as well, of course, but it's usually vanishingly small because it's split by every investor. So for privately traded companies the people who own them can make their living just based on the money left over after they pay all their expenses, but for investors in public companies the only feasible way for them to have more money at the end of the day is for the company to be worth more money at the end of the day because their potential profits from dividends are baked into the stock price. The owner doesn't take a hit, because his profits are (revenue - cost) not (value of company at buy-in) - (value of company at sell-out)
Yes, for a public company. We’re literally discussing the difference between public and private companies.
Dividends don’t exist for private companies. The dividend is the profit.
Dividends don't exist for a private company and I never said they did. And that's why a private company can exist without growing and a public company can't. If you look up the thread, you'll find that it's all in response to someone else posting "Private ownership can give you the benefit of operating at a stagnate revenue since it still represents a positive income stream for the owners", which is exactly what I said here. The owners of private companies profit when there's money left over after all the expenses are paid. The owners of public companies only profit when there's more money left over this year than last year because that will induce people to be willing to pay more for the shareholder's stake, and that increase in the value of the stake (which should reflect an increase in the value of the company) is the profit for a shareholder. So as a private owner if there's a million dollars left over after every year I make a million dollars but as a shareholder if there's a million dollars left over after every year I make more or less nothing.