Roughly 40% of global stocks don't even pay dividends [0], so that's pretty clearly not the only reason to own stocks.

[0] https://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-smarter-mutual-fund... (from 2014, but the number likely hasn't changed substantially)

A stock only has value (theoretically) because it offers cash flow to owners. that cash flow is created by eg distributions (dividends) or as a result of an acquisition. If a stock will never create cash flow for the owner it theoretically has no value.

In theory, the price of a stock reflects the market's expectation of future dividends. In practice, the market expects lots of things that aren't true.

I've come around to the idea that stocks have an intrinsic value as collateral/store of value.

I saw that with a family that owned a condemned property. They couldn't rent it but they sure could borrow against the land price (ever rising) minus the cost of demo'ing the old building.

I also think stocks tend to keep up with/beat inflation and thus are better than cash as a store of value.

Bingo.

So long as asset value inflates, it's good for cash via loans. The moreso if asset inflation > nominal interest rates.

The expectation doesn't have to be a certainty for this to make sense.

If there is an 0.01% chance of paying $10,000 dividend, or 100% chance of paying $1 dividend, the expected payout is the same.

I don't have any data handy, but intuitively I would argue the majority of people owning stock never do anything to control the management of the company, neither they want to. They want the part of the revenue stream that is produced either by dividends or by stock appreciation, that's it. Of course, there are activist investors, but saying all of them are such sounds wrong.

Almost. From what I've observed, the main reason to own stock is to flip it to the next sucker for more than you bought it for. I don't often see people caring about dividends directly. I guess that's a job for index funds?