In my opinion only, dividends are great for the investor but bad for the investment. Dividends become a liability for the copanny, not an asset. Dividends are a bill for the company or a debt for the company. Dividends are paid as a percentage of the stock value. This is great for the investor only if the stock goes up. You get a nice reward, a bonus. It's only a small percent based on the value of the stock. If the stock tanks, not only do you lose the value of the stock, but also the dividend (a big percent.) It's a double whammy. In my personal opinion I would rather have a stock that does not pay dividends and grew. As long as my investment value went up, I'm happy. It's a win-win for the company and the investment. In my opinion, it's better to invest in a company that does not pay dividends because it can grow a lot faster, expand and invest in the company. I think it might be better to own shares in Rite Aid because they don't pay dividends. That money is used to grow, invest and pay off debt. It could be a better invesment. Rite Aid could possibly double or triple before Walgreens does. I feel that Rite Aid is a better investment, if you bought Rite Aid 3 months ago you would have made a lot more profit than if you bought Walgreens. I love money, money is good, money is green, I see a lot of green in Rite Aid. Author Master Wall Street available on Amazon kindle ebook.
You are a little confused. The dividend is set periodically as a cash amount. If the stock price goes up or down, the dividend remains the same unless the company declares a change (which is usually done annually in Walgreens case). You do not lose dividend just because the share price decreases. The dividend is declared as it's cash value, then interpreted as a percentage of the current stock price.