Why would I buy non-dividend stocks if they do not provide any cashflow?

In my experience dividends can be kind of a mental crutch to keep lazy investors in crappy stocks.

What really matters is the total after tax return on investment, capital appreciation plus dividends less tax paid on dividends (depending on the tax treatment of dividends).

I remember talking with a very wealthy friend (worth in excess of 100 million) and he told me “I’m selling XYZ (tech startup stock we both owned, which we bought at 5c IPO)” for 20c because it doesn’t pay a dividend. It went to $1.40 eventually. His lazy thinking cost him. I also remember him keeping stock in the Australian national phone carrier, Telstra, which was being disrupted in every direction and losing it’s core business because “it pays a 5% dividend, better than you can get in the bank”. Again lazy thinking.

Nothing wrong with dividends, but they make it more difficult to calculate accurately what’s going on.