(you know what happens when you assume!)
I actually doubt that this figures much into the purchase of most stocks. Many stocks don't pay dividends; the ones that do often underperform equivalent risk-adjusted investments. There's very few reasons to buy a stock other than "because you think it will appreciate" -- i.e., generate a capital gain.
> You can sell it if you like and get your capital back (and
> often at a higher price)
Are you saying that, on average, stocks go up? :-)
I thought I read recently that the net gain in the entire NASDAQ over the last N (7?) years was $0.
> it's not like the dividend reduces the asset's intrinsic value.
It doesn't? The balance sheet goes down. I'd call that as 'intrinsic' as it gets. When a stock goes ex-dividend, the price drops instantaneously. You're, by definition, dividing the investment into two pieces: 1) the 'productive' part that stays with the company and 2) the cash part that goes elsewhere.
> And where do the profits come from to pay dividends? From
> uncompensated labor, of course. Why not get a bit back from the
> rentiers?
Well sure, but that's back to my "because they can" ...?
Has anyone seen the actual proposal?
/jordan