Stock Intrinsic Value

I'm not sure about the inherent value, but here's an argument that shows that it can't be valueless:If any company's stock is trading too low, you could take a loan and buy out the company using its own profit to pay the loan. So you would expect the stock price to track profits, even if existing shareholders are only in it waiting for a buyout.That idea ensures the stock is valued somewhat accurately(say, within 35% of the 'true' value on the private market),

It seems to me that for companies that pay no dividends (and assuming you would have not nearly enough stock to have a vote that matters) there is no value at all in the stock outside of the stock price. The only relevant metric is what other people are willing to pay to buy your stock. Through some mechanism that I can't undertand, the perception of the stock value is still tied to the performance of the company, so it seems like even people going long are still dealing with their predictions o

I am not talking about the valutatio of the company but about the price of the stock.The valutation of a company is meaningful for loans and investments, but not directly for retail trading.If the stock pays 0 dividends then the only value it can have must be that of finding a greater fool to sell it to.

This is an interesting premise when applied to the stock market.In theory, the value of a stock is the discounted value of all future cash flows, on the premise that all profits (in excess of debt servicing etc.) belong to the shareholders, and they have a legal claim on that cash.In practice, have you ever known a company who, at the top of their product cycle, says "Welp, we got no idea what we could possibly spend all this money on that has a positive ROI in excess of what you coul

Stocks are set up to have some sort of inherent value tied to the company, or nobody would buy them. The typical ways are dividends paid out of profits, company buyouts, and the on hand assets of the company that can be sold. The market is just a pricing mechanism around all that.

The discussion from the beginning was about the value of stocks. Traditionally it's a share of profits in the form of dividends and voting rights. If the stock doesn't pay dividends and the founder has 51%, then you get none of that, so why does the stock have any value. That's the discussion here. Try to read and understand the question before engaging next time.

Why? A lot of the value of a stock is ability to resell at a high price later. If everyone (including U.S. Fed and gov) agrees to continue to push prices high for the forseeable future, then it seems like prices can lose connection to e.g. ownership in a company.

> for companies that pay no dividends ... there is no value at all in the stock outside of the stock price [but] the perception of the stock value is still tied to the performance of the companyOwning a stock is like owning a fraction of a company. The value of stock comes from the following:(1) dividends (that is, a fraction of current profits)(2) assets (that is, a fraction of stuff the company has that could be sold; one of Warren Buffett's strategies is to buy companies that ha

All companies eventually die. Sometimes this can take hundreds of years, but all companies do eventually die. At that point, the stock is worth zero. So if all stock is eventually worth zero, why pay for any of it today?Well, you may want voting rights. But voting rights don't mean much unless you hold a lot of stock, and a lot of stock is non-voting anyway.That leaves dividends and exits. An exit depends on someone having a value for the company, and can almost be looked at as a 

"...but he is such a part of the value of that stock"Just because you say it doesn't make it true!