With every stock going ex-dividend, the stock price seem to drop by the amount of dividend per share.
A lot of good discussion here on the value of dividends but I don't see anyone addressing this common source of confusion.
The stock price doesn't 'seem' to drop by the amount of the dividend. What you are noticing is that exchanges (in the US, at least), are required to mark down the last traded price by the amount of the dividend on the ex-dividend date. For example, Let's say a company issues a $1 dividend with an ex-date of today, and the last trade recorded yesterday was $100. The 'adjusted close' will be $99. When trading opens today, the last trade price will be reported as $99. The key is to understand that the actual last trade was made at $100.
If you want to see a real-world example, you can look here at MSFT price history on yahoo finance. Note that there are two 'close' columns: 'Close' and 'Adj Close'. They are almost always exactly the same. Scroll down until you see a dividend line. At the time of writing, the last MSFT dividend was $0.75 on the 15th of November 2023. Look at the price line for the 14th. You will see that the close price was $370.27, and the adjusted close price is $369.52. The difference between the close price and adjusted close price is exactly $0.75, the amount of the dividend. The close price was the actual trade price. The adjusted price is, as the name implies, an adjustment to the actual real trade price. Now look at the prices on the 15th. It opened and closed higher than the adjusted close price. That adjusted close isn't a 'real' price. That's why it is recorded separately in the price history. It's the assumed fair price for that stock after the dividend payment cannot be claimed. Real market prices are set by trades, not the exchange.
So why would the exchanges do this and, moreover, why are they required by regulators to do this? At one point, I tracked down the reasoning behind it and I could probably find it again if necessary. But, from memory, this wasn't always the practice at every exchange. Some did this, some did not, or at least the specifics were not completely consistent, hence the rule. The reasoning for doing this is that, in theory, the value of the stock prior to the ex-dividend date should be priced higher than on the ex-dividend date by the amount of the dividend. If I bought ten thousand shares of MSFT on Nov. 14th for 370.27, I would receive $7500 in cash soon after, effectively discounting the price I paid. If you bought on the 15th at that price, you would have paid much more for the same thing. If I could sell my shares the next day at the same price I bought them, I basically pocket $7500 for free. Back when not all exchanges adjusted for dividends (sometime in the 70s IIRC,) that kind of thing could and did happen when people were not aware of the ex-dividend date. So, regulators decided to make it a rule that prices would always be adjusted down to prevent the unwary from being taken advantage of in this way. This article: "Understanding Ex-Dividend Dates" explains it pretty succinctly:
When a company pays a large dividend, the market may account for that dividend in the days preceding the ex-div date by a rise in the price of the stock. This is because buyers are willing to pay a premium to receive the dividend. However, on the ex-div date, the exchange automatically reduces the price of the stock by the amount of the dividend.
Also here:
The declaration of a dividend naturally encourages investors to purchase stock. Because investors know that they will receive a dividend if they purchase the stock before the ex-dividend date, they are willing to pay a premium.
This causes the price of a stock to increase in the days leading up to the ex-dividend date. In general, the increase is about equal to the amount of the dividend, but the actual price change is based on market activity and not determined by any governing entity.
A really common misconception around this is that somehow the dividend is taken "out of the price". I don't understand what mechanism people think would allow for that, but I've had enough debates about it to know that people really think this, even if they can't explain how that would supposedly work.
The reality is actually sort of the opposite of this, however. The price of a stock will tend to increase between the dividend announcement and the ex-date by the amount of the dividend. This isn't just theory, though, research shows this to be the case.
Here's a really simple analogy: Suppose you have the opportunity to buy two artic magenta Stanley travel mugs. You are sure you can flip them for more money in a few days. One of these mugs has a (real) $100 bill in it. The other is empty. In every other way these mugs are exactly the same. How much more should you be willing to pay for the mug containing the money. Based on basic economic logic, you should be willing to pay up to $100 more for it. At any premium less than $100 you should prefer the mug containing the money. At $100, you should be ambivalent. Now, consider a stock right before and ex-div date and the same stock on the ex-div date. Unless something significant happens the eve of the ex-div date, that stock is the same thing on both dates with one exception, when you buy it on the eve of the ex-div date, it comes with a payment. Ignoring taxes and some other confusing factors, a rational investor will be willing to pay exactly that payment more for the stock on the eve of the ex-div date. It's really that simple.
But, of course, there are many other days when you can buy a stock than that. We need a more complicated analogy for that, imagine I had a goose that lays one golden egg every month on the 1st of the month. For simplicity, assume each one is worth $100,000 and the price of gold is fixed. You wish to purchase the goose and we've come to an agreement on a fair price. Now, if you purchase the last day of the current month, you will get 100 grand the next day. If you purchase on the 1st, I get that egg. So, when do we do the deal? Or rather, how do we come to an agreement on when to do the deal? The simple and fair answer is to prorate the value of the next egg and add it to the agreed price. If you buy on the 1st, you pay no premium. If you buy on the last day of the month, you pay an extra $100K. If you buy halfway through the month, the premium is $50K. This is essentially how accrued interest works for bonds. The logic for dividends is the same with the caveat that bond valuation is a much more precise exercise than stock valuation.
The idea that the dividend comes directly out of the price (how?) or that it is pulled from the company's value is really pretty ludicrous. If that were the case, why doesn't the exchange adjust the price after every payroll or capital expenditure? How or why would the dollars spent on the CEO's bonus be different from the dollars paid to investors as dividends? There's no logical basis for that idea and frankly, it strongly suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of stock/company valuation.
To be clear, paying dividends does have a meaningful impact on a company. That's money that can't be used to fund operations or make capital improvements. Some companies take on debt in order to avoid cutting their dividend. All of this is relevant to valuing the company. But it's not a simple subtraction from the price.