The ones that don’t are valued on the assumption that they will in the future.

Have google, Facebook amazon or Netflix ever issued a dividend?

They are likely to do stock buybacks which are the same thing. You’re certainly not buying them for voting rights - FB and Google almost don’t give those out, and ETFs don’t pass on their voting rights but are not cheaper than the underlying stocks.

When was the last buyback?

What is your basis for saying this?

Are you asking me to link the Wikipedia article for capital asset pricing?

> The [stocks] that don’t [pay a dividend] are valued on the assumption that they will in the future.

Could you please make a specific section that justifies your claim?

I skimmed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_asset_pricing_model but I don't see anything there that validates your claim. I may have overlooked something, if so please let me know.

I'm skeptical of your claim. Based on some other reading [1]:

> To manage your portfolio, you need a way to compare your different investments and decide which are worth keeping. The dividend discount model and the capital asset pricing model are two methods for appraising the value of your investments. DDM is based on the value of the dividends a share of stock brings in, whereas CAPM evaluates risks and returns compared to the market average.

[1] https://budgeting.thenest.com/capm-vs-ddm-24472.html

You could have written "the Wikipedia article for capital asset pricing". I don't see the need to make it a question.

Your comment comes across as passive aggressive, unfortunately. I hope that wasn't your intent.