query: Buying from an aggressive salesperson

positive: "In my experience when a salesperson says a particular deal is only good if you purchase right now, 100% of the time it is not true. Of course I can't guarantee that is universally the case, but if you leave and come back 5 minutes later, or tomorrow, or next week, it's extremely likely that they'll still take your money for the original price. (In fact, sometimes after you leave you get a call with even a lower price than the ""excellent offer""...) Most of the time when you are presented with high pressure sales accompanied by a ""this price is only good right now"" pitch, it ends up being because they don't want you to go search the competition and read reviews. In this case you have already done that and deemed the item to be worthwhile. Perhaps a better tactic for the salesperson would have been to try to convince you that others are interested in the item and if you wait it might be sold to someone else at that excellent price. Sales is an art, and it requires the salesperson to size you up and try to figure out your vulnerability and exploit it. This particular salesperson obviously misjudged you and/or you don't have an easily exploitable vulnerability. I wouldn't let the shortcomings of the salesperson get in the way of your purchase. If you are worried about the scenario of someone else snatching up the item, consider offering a deposit to hold the item for a certain amount of time while you ""reflect"" and/or ""arrange for the funds""."

positive: There are few main reasons I can think of that the salesperson would do this: A lot of people assume it's the 3rd option always.  But if the person is reputable, it's most likely 1 or 2. You can't run a business doing option 3 for long without getting a reputation.

positive: "This is way too long for a comment, so I am posting this as an answer. My bet is that you're buying a new piano. It is the only instrument that makes sense. The rest of this answer are going to assume this, but this should apply well if you're going after a violin or marimba for example. For those readers that do not know, a piano is a very delicate and expensive music instrument. My piano is literally more expensive than my car. There are a lot of similarities in sales negotiation between buying a piano and buying a car. You may be surprised to know that the cost for the dealer to acquire a piano is only around half the listed price. Therefore, the salesperson has a lot of room to negotiate a sale price to you. This explains why he was able to make a good offer for the model you are not intending to buy. You are best by comparing the final sale price with other similar models in your region, or the exact model around your region, which you have already did. Those indicate the standard price in your negotiation. You described the dealer had the exact model you desire, only in different appearance. I assume you want a black color while they have a white or wood-pattern one in their showroom. Note, every piano is different. Even with the exact same model, there will be very slight differences in the tune and touch, since some processes are hand finished. (If you're buying a Steinway, treat each of them as an individual hand crafted art.) Play the exact instrument you will be buying before closing the deal. If they do not have your desired model in the showroom, ask for a visit to their inventory facility. Again, play the exact instrument, not a showroom model. Some dishonest dealers will have their showroom pianos regulated and tuned differently than the ""standard"" pianos from shipping. If you get an extremely good offer, proceed with caution. There may be defects in that particular instrument. Look for rust or oxidized layers on the strings. Look for groves in the hammers. Listen to clicking noises when playing the keys. These are signs that the instrument has been around for quite a while and they cannot sell it. You can also copy down the serial number and look up the manufacturing date online. Before you close the deal, ask for after-sale services. How many free tunings will they provide? Will they polish your piano after delivery? These are bargain chips you can use for final adjustment of the price."

positive: I often spend weeks or months (and sometimes even years) deciding whether to buy something. Certainly the dealer should recognize you by now if you take a third opportunity to look at the same instrument. You could politely remind him that you've twice declined his excellent prices. From there you can assert that you will purchase only when you are ready.

positive: "My advice is to quit worrying about the salesman's tactics.  They are a distraction.  What do you want?  How much are you willing to pay for it.  If you want the instrument, decide how much you want to pay for it.  Round down to the next even hundred.  Take that much in $100 bills.  Put the money in his hand and say, ""This is what I have, take it or leave it"".  You must be prepared to walk out of the store without the instrument."

positive: "I have a very simple rule. For anything other than trivial purchases (a small fraction of my monthly income), the only final decision I will make in the presence of a salesperson is ""No"". After I have the terms nailed down, and still feel that I am likely to buy the item, I leave the store, car dealership etc., and think about it by myself. Often, I go to a mall coffee shop to do the thinking. If it is really big, I sleep on it and make my decision the next day. Once I have made my decision, I inform the salesperson. If the decision is ""No"" I do not discuss my reasons - that gives them an overcome-the-objection lever. I just tell them I have decided not to buy the item, which is all they need to know."

positive: From your question and how you have framed it, I get you find Agressive Sales tactics disturb the buying process for you. ;) I understand because I also find the whole process of Research / Negotiating / Buying / Owning / Using is all on one continuum, so anything that ruins the process will likely lose the sale or enjoyment of the item, at the end of the day.  [Very long answer .... Sorry :) ] The answer to this is to KNOW what you want before you have to deal with the Sales people. A good Sales person likes a customer who knows what they want. I would suggest that you follow my 'Buying Process' (Much you have already done) : Before you Buy: Identify the item you want and the max/min 'realistic' price you  would buy at. [Stick to this price else 'Buyers Remorse' may bite  later.] Write the questions you have down on paper before you visit the    Dealer. Write the answers you want on the same list, if known. Decide which questions are most important and therefore must get the  answer you want. These should be the questions you ask first. Mark  these on the list. Re-visit points 1-3 are they complete and to your satisfaction ? Would you buy if all the answers & the price are right ? If NO then re-visit point 1-3 else you are not ready to buy now !!! If YES then Organise your visit to the Dealer. [Book appointment etc if needed.] At Dealer: Meet your Sales person and clearly state what you want (the item) and importantly when you intend to buy, if all your questions are answered to your satisfaction.  There is no need to discuss price at this point as the 'haggling' is only possible IF the questions are answered to your satisfaction. Do not give information such as your maximum budget or similar requests, as they give the sales person the upper hand to maximise his/her pricing.  If asked state that your budget is conditional on the answers you get. As the questions are answered assess the answer and assign +/- to the question on your list. If any of your most critical / important questions are answered in the negative, they are the reasons you have to call it a day and walk out. You can assess whether they are worth ignoring but you will need to factor this into your price and if you have identified your questions correctly there should be little room for debate. Assuming you have got all your questions answered you should know what you are buying and have assessed what is a reasonable price for it, if you still want it as this point.  If you have lost interest, say so and let the Sales person go. Don't waste their time. They may make some sort of offer to you BUT don't forget that if you have doubts now they will not go away easily no matter what the 'great' price is. If you want it then continue. Buying your Item: [None of the following is really usefull if you have told the Sales person your Budget, as they will be aiming for the highest end of your budget. You will often find that the best price is very close to your maximum budget !!! :)] Do not forget your realistic price range, this should limit your buying price no matter what tactics are used by the Sales person. Only you know what you are prepared to pay and if an extra 1% or 50% is considered worth it to you, if you have to have the item :) Regardless, you have to have some idea of your limit and be prepared to stick to it. You must be able to walk away if the price is silly and not worth it. Assuming you have not been smitten by your item and funds are NOT unlimited, ask for the price and assess it against your price range. At this point I can only offer pointers as there are no 'magic' rules to get what you want at the lowest price. The only advice I would offer is that you will be lucky to get something at your 1st offer price unless the seller really needs to sell, because of this your 1st offer should be less than your price range lowest band. You will need to assess how much less but be prepared to get a 'No' response. If you get a 'Yes' and your research is good 'Buy It !!!' If you get too enthusiastic a response, question your research & if not sure bail out [No Sale] :) At this point you are likely to be 'Haggling' so you need to be ready for all the 'Must buy Now' tactics. If you have clearly stated your wants and timescales there is no reason to be pulled in by these tactics and they can be ignored until the price has reached the level you are happy with. If the price is not moving where you want than clearly state you cannot 'buy at that price'. If you get a total stop and no movement than you need to assess your 'need' and if priced too high then you should walk out. Remember if you stated that you had a timescale to buy of 1/2/3 weeks you should act like you have 1/2/3 weeks to keep looking. Any eagerness on your part will tell the Sales person that you have lied !!! :) You can always come back and try again, reminding the Sales person that the 'item' is still there and perhaps it is priced too high to sell and make the same offer. !!! (A bit of cheek sometimes works.) If the price is close and you still want it and the Sales person is not moving you need to try walking out while stating that you would love the 'item' if it was priced better, if no improved offer as you go, try an increased offer but again you need to assess how much and remember you can only go up, or walk out and come back another day. If the price is at a level you are happy with then you should have no reason not to buy (if you have followed this process) but this does not mean that you should be forced into buying now if you do not want to. Regardless of any 'Must buy now' tactics if the price is right and you cannot buy now, tell the Sales person when you CAN buy and see if you can get an agreement with this. It is unfair to expect a price to be held for an indeterminate time, so you do need to state when you could buy if not now when a price has been agreed. This is a point where the deal may break down if the Sales person thinks they have a sale and trys to force the Sale now. Once again you have to assess your 'need' and whether buying now is better than walking out. If the deal breaks down there is nothing stopping you from coming back and offering the same price when you can buy. A final option is to agree if a deposit can be left to reserve the item until you can buy. This gives the Sales person some assurance that you will come back and is sometimes NON-Refundable unless you agree otherwise before you pay, so check this detail first. (This tends to be smaller Dealers but generally in the UK the large companies offer refundable deposits as part of their Customer Service, the advantage of using larger Stores/Dealers etc.) Apologies for the epic reply, hope it helps.

positive: "He sounds like a very bad salesman and I should know, because I was a sales manager at a bike shop which sold bikes from $200 to $10k. Now I had a clear goal, which is to sell as many bikes at the highest price possible, but I didn't do that by making customers uncomfortable. Each customer received different treatment depending on what they were looking for.  For example, the $200 beach cruiser buyer was going to be told ""You look great on that bike... can I ring you up?"", whereas the racer interested in saving grams will receive a detailed discussion about his bike options.  The $200 bike customer won't have very sophisticated questions (although I could give a lecture on cruisers), so giving out too much info complicates a likely quick impulse buy.  On the other hand, we are building a relationship with the racer which will include detailed fitting sessions and time-consuming mechanical service.  While I also want to close a high priced sale, it will take several visits to prove both I have the right bike and this is the best shop. But no matter what you were buying, I was always pleasant and unhurried, and my customers left happy.   Specifically with this situation of high pressure tactics, the problem is the competition with internet sales.  Often customers will have only 2 criteria, the model and the price, and if a shop does not meet both, the customer walks right out.   Possibly this sales guy is a bit cynical with his tactics, but the reality is that if you have no relationship with that shop, you fall into the category of internet buyer.  One thing the sales guy could have done was not tell you we wasn't going to honor this price if you came back.  Occasionally there would be an internet buyer, and I showed no unpleasantness even though internet sellers could crush our brick and mortar shop.  I would mention a competitive price and if he bought it, great, and if not, that's just business.   As for the buyer, I would treat these tactics with a certain detachment.  I would personally chuckle at his treatment and ask if I could kick the tires, an user car saying.   I suppose the bottom line is if you are ready to buy this specific model, and if the price is right (and the shop is ethical so you won't get ripped off with garbage), then you have to be ready to buy on the spot. I will point out one horrible experience I had at a car dealership.  I came in 15 minutes before closing and a sales person gave me a price almost a third cheaper than list.  I wasn't ready to buy on my first visit ever to a dealership and of course, buying a car has all kinds of hidden fees.  I asked will this be the price tomorrow, and he said absolutely not.  I told him, ""so if I come in tomorrow morning, your dealer clock has only gone 15 minutes"" but that logic did not register with him.   Maybe he thought I was going to spend 15k on the spot and pressure tactics would work on me.  I never came back, but I did go another dealership and bought a car after a reasonable negotiation."

positive: As described by the other answers, there are pretty harmless explanations for that behaviour. You could be slightly worried because he gave you exceptionally good deals for both instruments, but that's neither here nor there. Maybe he simply prices all items way up to be able to give a great discount on either sale. You can't ever know; the actual price you pay in the end is what counts. What I would do: If I expect in advance (or if I notice during the negotiation) that I am put under pressure in this way, I usually try to do exactly the same, in reverse. That is, I take  a minute to explain up front that I will not, under any circumstance, buy right now, but that this is a purely informational event. I will make sure not to have my money/card with me. Any high-end salesman worth his sale should have no problem with that at all. Money aside, you are shopping for something that will mean a lot to you. The salesman is not some peddler of arbitrary wares. Everybody understands that not only do you not want to pay too high a price, but also that you want to really get the item you want, and want to be happy with it for a long time. This is a tough decision, often, and if the salesman cannot, or does not want to respect that, then it would be a clear signal for me that dubious things are going on. In fact, you would probably be unhappier if you got the wrong item for a great price than if you got a great item for a slightly too-high price. That is something you should probably not tell the salesman ;), but can keep in mind. So getting the greatest deal of all times is probably not so high on your priority list.

positive: If something in any transaction in life—financial or otherwise—doesn’t make you feel comfortable and the choice is between saving money with one thing versus another, don’t sell your personal needs short. Pay more elsewhere that treats you the way you expect to be treated. In the long run the $$$ you “save” in a cheaper transaction might cost you more in the headaches and annoyance you have to swallow in dealing with this “bargain” in the future. Your question is this: “Do his sales tactics indicate other underlying problems? How can I deal effectively with those tactics?” And you state this as well: “To make a long story short, the dealer's aggressive sales tactics have made me somewhat uncomfortable.” And finally ask: “How can I deal effectively with those tactics?” Okay, first and foremost if you feel discomfort in anything in life—not just a financial situation—just walk away. You might have to say “No…” when doing this but it’s not always the case you will have to counter aggression with aggression. And specifically in the case of a purchase like this, you need to also ask yourself: “Is this discount being offered me worth the headache I am getting?” At the end of the day money is meaningless and has it’s main worth as an economic motivator/stimulator: Someone has a need and someone else has something that can solve that need. What would it take for the side of need to connect to the side of solution to that need? This is the basic concept surrounding all economics. So that said, I have personally avoided buying things for less money and paid slightly more elsewhere for a service experience that made me feel comfortable. At the end of the day, if you feel happy in the transaction it helps in the long run more than—let’s say—the $20 to $40 you “save” by buying from someone else. Also—on the side of customer service—this person’s sales techniques sound like something out of a very old fashioned sales playbook. Nowadays it’s all about relationships and service: The immediate sale is not as important for competent and reputable businesses because they know a better customer service experience will bring people back. So it doesn’t matter how long this guy has been in business: It could be that he’s been in business a long time just because he has been in business a long time. That said—and in the case of musical instruments—maybe this guy is really good at care and upkeep of instruments but has crappy sales techniques. Keep that in mind as well and just push back on their sales methods. For things like musical instruments, people might be jerks on the sales side but in the maintenance and repair side they are great. Will you need to go to them if/when your instrument needs repair? Or you don’t care? At the end of the day, go with your gut. And if your gut says, “No…” then just go somewhere else and spend your money on an item you like from a place that treats you the way you need.

negative: Telemarketing is a method of direct marketing in which a salesperson solicits prospective customers to buy products or services, either over the phone or through a subsequent face to face or Web conferencing appointment scheduled during the call. Telemarketing can also include recorded sales pitches programmed to be played over the phone via automatic dialing.

negative: This is called a Life Annuity, and any life insurance salesperson will gladly sell you one.

negative: "Okay, so...  > Lifting* the offer (hit bids, lift offers). And I suppose that's a stategy, albeit a somewhat simple one. Passive routing strategies differ from firm to firm and algo to algo. What is your customer going to think if you bid up a new price level only for the stock to rally completely away from it?  I mean if you have an open order for more than 10 times the amount currently offered with a limit above the offer, and you havent gotten filled on the bid, what can you do but lift the offer and try to be first at the next price level up? At least you would have gotten some at the price they quoted, or are they fill or kill?  > ""Bidding it up to attract sellers"" sounds an awful lot like spoofing, just a heads up. Sure though, if you want to tighten a spread or create new levels with aggressive passive liquidity, that is a strategy. The same caveats as I mentioned above apply.  Just to be clear, 'aggressively adding passive liquidity' is the more apt way to put it - I'm talking about when you actually want to get filled on those bids but you're having trouble finding sellers.  Could you give me an example of what you might consider passive or aggressive, just for scale - would a mkt impact of .10% raise any eyebrows? How do you gauge fair value or does that matter less to you than just accumulating/selling what you can for what you were asked to?  > Anyway, if market impact isn't an issue for the customer, sure, take liquidity until you're filled. Don't forget about getting good size done in the opening and closing auctions (MOO/MOC). If you're too passive you risk the market moving away from you and pissing off the customer. If you're too aggressive you risk moving the market too much and pissing off the customer.  So then is the question more 'how motivated is the buyer or seller?'  I'm glad you bring up the MOO/MOC, are there certain securities that don't have much of a market in those auctions?  Trying to suss out how a large firm can hold a position in some of the less popular names with next to no liquidity and little in the way of dark pool, auction, block sales, etc."

negative: "There are two reasons leases are generally a worse deal than buying. First, inherent in the lease is the concept of trading in the car at the end of the lease term. As we all know, cars depreciate the most in the first year or two. By repeatedly leasing cars on short time frames, you own the vehicles during those most expensive years. Of course there's nothing stopping you from doing the same thing when buying (be it via cash or loan), but leasing builds in a schedule and encourages you to stick to it. Second, it is easier for the dealer salesperson to hide things from the consumer in a lease contract. Most salespeople will try to get a car purchaser to focus on the monthly payment, or they'll four-box the purchaser, but even then there's only 4 numbers, and most consumers have a rough idea what they are and what they mean. But in a lease the numbers in question are renamed and obscured. ""Price"" becomes ""capitalized cost"". ""Interest rate"" becomes ""money factor"" and is divided by 2400, making it look really small and not easily translatable without a calculator or pencil and paper. ""Down payment"" becomes a capitalized cost reduction. There's a new concept ""residual value."" Neither of those reasons change when interest rate is lower."

negative: Yeah, there are a lot of things that 'poof' you into existence with them. Their whole business model is that they claim to have dirt on *every* established business. And they basically do. Attempting to get a number with them is really only an issue for brand new businesses.  Regardless, they will send you very misleading spam and junk mail. And a lot of it comes off to me as threats/extortion.  They also listed my home phone number for one of my businesses for years. When you call for assistance, they really only care about tricking you into buying some package, and don't care about being helpful or correcting their records.  I know I sound mean, but honestly their entire sales method on me was to trick me into buying something I knew I didn't want or need. With multiple salespersons there. It's really scummy.

negative: Skimmed this, but it is pretty true.  Try to get into sales.  Since you will basically need to be selling anyway, you might as well get paid as such.  Sales teams make a lot more than the analysts in 90% of the cases.  As long as you don't get fired a middle of the road to below average salesperson will make a lot more than all but the top analysts (who are probably on their way to being promoted to managment to no longer be analysts).  Again maybe not all firms are like this, but from what I have seen it seems to be a trend...

negative: Rebates are offered on exchange to promote liquidity offers so that aggressive buy/sell can be done, otherwise a sizable sell/buy would crash the price of a stock with no liquidity, it is perfectly normal for a firm to attempt look for the rebate if the customer is willing to wait longer for the execution to happen. The Author clearly has no freaking idea what the hell he is talking about.

negative: "I love John's answer, but I just can't help myself from adding my 2 cents, even though it's over 5 years later. I sold cars for a while in the late 90s, and I mostly agree with John's answer. Where I disagree though, is that where I worked, the salesperson did not have ANY authority to make a sale. A sales manager was required to sign off on every sale. That doesn't mean that the manager had to interact with the buyer, that could all be handled behind the scenes, but the pricing and even much of the negotiating strategies were dictated by the sales managers. Some of the seasoned salespeople would estimate numbers on their own, but occasionally you'd hear the managers still chew them out with ""I wish you wouldn't have said that"". Of course, every dealership is different. Additional purchase advice: There is a strategy that can work well for the buyer, but only in scenarios where the salesperson is trying to prevent you from leaving. They may start interrupting you as you are packing up, or blocking your path to the door, or even begging. If this happens, they are obviously desperate for whatever reason. In this case, if you came prepared with research on a good price that you are comfortable with, then shoot lower and hold firm to the point of near exhaustion. Not so low that that they realize you're too far away- they will let you leave at that point. It needs to be within a reasonable amount, perhaps at most 1-2% of the purchase price. Once you detect the salesperson is desperate, you finally move up to your goal number or possibly a little lower. Typically the salesperson will be so happy to have gotten you to move at all that they'll accept. And if the managers are fed up too (like 45 minutes after close), they'll accept too. I saw this happen multiple times in a high pressure scenario. I also used it once myself as a buyer. If you are planning to purchase options that can be added at the dealer rather than from the factory, keep them up your sleeve at first. Get your negotiations down to where you are a little further apart than the invoice price of the option, then make your move. For example, suppose the option you want retails for $350 with an invoice of $300. Get within about $400 of the dealer. Then offer to pay their price, but only if they throw in the option you want. This will throw them completely off guard because they didn't expect it and all of their calculations were based on without it. If they say yes, you effectively moved $100 and they moved $300. It's much more likely that they'll agree to this than taking $300 off the price of the car. (I'm guessing the reason for this is partially due to how their accounting works with sticker price vs aftermarket price, and partially psychological.) Note, this works best with new cars, and make sure you only do this if it's for items they can add after the fact. Even if they don't have the part in stock it's ok, they can give you an IOU. But if the option requires a car change to something they don't have on the lot, it will probably just make them mad."

negative: To piggy back mbhunter's answer, the broker is going to find a way to make the amount of money they want, and either the employee or the company will foot that bill. But additionally, most small businesses want to compete and the market and offer benefits in the US.  So they shop around, and maybe the boss doesn't have the best knowledge about effective investing, so they end up taking the offering from the broker who sells it the best. Give you company credit for offering something, but know they are as affected by a good salesperson as anybody else.  Being a good sales person doesn't mean you are selling a good product.

negative: "They will show up ad they will be given the money when the time comes.   The central message out there right now is still ""don't buy a house"" especially while the smart money investors are still buying.  Messaging will change when the time comes.  Wait til housing prices are soaring and the media is completely in the tank with it.    Yeah I know it sounds crazy but when banks want to sell loans, they will market aggressively and people will buy.  Just like last time."

negative: "But if we raise the price of the juicer to something rediculous,  it will seem like a ""premium"" product,  and if we lock our customers into buying their juice from us only, and auto expire the fruit on an aggressive schedule we'll make a ton of money.  It's the hottest trend right now.  We can slap that model on anything and it's guaranteed to make us money,  just like it says in this $80k Power Point deck.  Open source fruit is a thing of the past folks.  Squeezing fruit by hand is for plebians and suckers."

negative: "That's an interesting statement to make. A pretty even number of people complain about not being helped and being ""bombarded"" with ""pushy"" employees. Hourly employees won't be as aggressive about selling whatever the fuck they can, and commission employees are going to make sure they help you even if you don't ask.  Best buy also tries to promise ""impartial advice"" which I think can only be achieved through hourly employees.   My comment history might give away that I was (I still am but I used to too) a best buy employee, first in mobile, then Geek Squad. I can't speak for more than my store,  but 9/10 of the people I work with regularly go above and beyond to do the right thing, and make good recommendations, for the customer first. I went from the new guy to the top associate in mobile in less than a year, just by presenting my customers with all of their options and suggesting a solution based on the information they give me.    Best buys problem, in my opinion, are young managers and old employees.  Older employees in my experience, know less about the products, are less honest, and more aggressive salespeople. With management, best buy loves to push young managers who increase sales around to affect as many stores as possible, meaning a younger go-hard pushes to undo the customer service progress that a store may make.   I never looked best buy until I started working there. Call it Stockholm syndrome if you can't resist, but there's a reason they're still around. Mobile and Geek squad aren't going anywhere for sure, and there are other very profitable segments of the store as well. I don't think they're going anywhere soon.   Sorry for the rant"

negative: Don't ever, ever, ever let someone else handle your money, unless you want somebody else have your money. Nobody can guarantee a return on stocks. That's utter bullshit. Stock go up and down according to market emotions. How can your guru predict the market's future emotions? Keep your head cool with stocks. Only buy when you are 'sure' you are not going to need the money in the next 10 years. Buy obligations before stocks, invest in 'defensive' stocks before investing in 'aggressive' stocks. Keep more money in obligations and defensive stock than in aggressive stocks. See how you can do by yourself. Before buying (or selling) anything, think about the risks, the market, the expert's opinion about this investment, etc. Set a target for selling (and adjust the target according to the performance of the stock). Before investing, try to learn about investing, really. I've made my mistakes, you'll make yours, let's hope they're not the same :)

negative: I'll agree with the other commenter. There is a ton more to sales than speaking the language and being a decent public speaker. Unless you know what you're getting into and feel confident you can get it done (or you believe that the company is willing to help you learn and grow as a salesperson and that's interesting to you from a career development perspective), I'd recommend avoiding a sales role and encouraging your boss to hire an actual sales person who meets his or her criteria.   EDIT: Source: am startup founder with no sales background who is having to do founder selling right now and learning just how hard it is.

negative: There is no one answer to this question, but there are some generalities. Most exchanges make a distinction between the passive and the aggressive sides of a trade.  The passive participant is the order that was resting on the market at the time of the trade.  It is an order that based on its price was not executable at the time, and therefore goes into the order book.  For example, I'm willing to sell 100 shares of a stock at $9.98 but nobody wants to buy that right now, so it remains as an open order on the exchange. Then somebody comes along and is willing to meet my price (I am glossing over lots of details here).  So they aggressively take out my order by either posting a market-buy, or specifically that they want to buy 100 shares at either $9.98, or at some higher price. Most exchanges will actually give me, as the passive (i.e. liquidity making) investor a small rebate, while the other person is charged a few fractions of a cent.  Google found NYSEArca details, and most other exchanges make their fees public as well.  As of this writing the generic price charged/credited: But they provide volume discounts, and many of the larger deals do fall into another tier of volume, which provides a different price structure.

negative: I just don't see that many suckers falling for cheap or subprime loans, given their student loans. Yellen raising rates will dampen aggressive bank profits somewhat. Smucks will be smucks, but smarter buyers would appraise their debt load and opt for renting or cheaper houses.  But then again, people don't even learn from recent history. US market is at recovery/pre-euphoria stage now. Canada is soon to pop a year after rates rise courtesy of Yellen. Given the size of the US gen y cohort, it is likely that many in their 30s in 2020 will buy. And will cry when the next bubble pops, as Boomers start selling assets to fund their retirements.

negative: They have ETFs for most of what you listed above.  Except the deep-fried candy bars.  You know that's just a distributed candy bar that is THEN fried right?  They have a few religious ETFs as well as some socially responsible ones.   There is no reason to make one based on a single person's preference though - ETFs make their money on fees.  For that they need VOLUME.   Move Volume = More Money  Also, there are over 1,411 ETF's in the US as of 2014.  That means there are a lot of options already. You could always create your own if you are a great salesperson though. Source

negative: What I'm saying is the NATO thing is also aggressive, and the coup was aggressive.  Also I think ukraine is just another battle in a very long war between Russian and American oil interests. That's why I don't want to take a side, except keep the American military out of it.

negative: In Order To Be Safe From A Fraudulent Stock Loss Recovery Firms, You Need To Be Careful And Notice Some Warning Signs Beforehand. Aggressive Unexpected calls, asking advance fee, self-praise online and elsewhere all these are characteristics of such a firm

negative: >Amazon is always going to be pointless for screws and nails because you can't ship that economically. You can't do items like lumber, sheet rock, or concrete due to weight. You can never ship large items due to size.  Amazon appears to be aggressively buying retailers that have physical presence in many communities.  I would not put it past them to begin buying building supply companies that specialize in delivery of bulk building materials.

negative: I still think it will be rather difficult. Best bet is to call around to the five or so closest dealers and express you are considering the car contingent on price (NOT PAYMENT). Ask for them to send you their best out-the-door price on a base model. Then when you get quotes from each of them, shop the lowest price around. Usually dealers will budge a few hundred bucks to beat other dealers.   But a 2018 STI will be difficult, if not impossible, to negotiate a few grand under MSRP. Understand that the people that buy this car are not doing so because it is a great bargain. So dealers can usually push this car at or near MSRP.   Lastly, do not set foot in a dealership until you have a firm out-the-door price. They will play sales tricks until you give up on negotiation and will pay anything just to get out of there. The only time you should go to the location is to sign papers and drive away with the car. Do not worry about being nice and congenial with the salesperson.   This advice got me my current vehicle at about 15% below the lowest True Car estimate. I don't claim this is the best advice out there but it works.

negative: Running a sandwich shop and, say, a software consulting service are quite different things.  I had two employees at one point, following the kind of thinking in the article.  But I found what that meant was that I had to spend more time being a manager and salesperson and much less time doing the work I enjoyed.  To make it viable I would have had to scale up to the point where I had at least one salesperson and maybe a manager, which would have required more income-producing staff to support them.  Instead, I scaled back to just myself, and have been very happy with that decision.  The article also underestimates what can be made in consulting or IT contracting.  Rates well above $100/hr are common for people with expertise (as opposed to commodity providers), and billing at least 40 hours a week is not usually a problem.  It's certainly true that a one-man operation is much more likely to put a ceiling on your earnings, but (a) that ceiling can be a lot higher than the article suggests, and (b) depending on the business, breaking that ceiling and earning much more is certainly possible in some businesses, for example where you have the opportunity to sell your work in product form rather than hourly.

negative: "Why thank you for this unbiassed information, trust deed salesperson.  Basically, trust deeds are a pawn shop for your house, except they aren't well regulated like a pawn shop.  ""Banks are too trustworthy.  I'm going to give my house to Joe, because he'll give me one third of one more percent, and it seems smart to me to gamble my home on a couple hundred bucks and some social network advice."""

negative: I think you may be drawing the wrong conclusion about why you put what type of investment in a taxable vs. tax-advantaged account. It is not so much about risk, but type of return. If you're investing both tax-advantaged and taxable accounts, you can benefit by putting more tax-inefficient investments inside your tax-advantaged accounts. Some aggressive asset types, like real estate, can throw off a lot of taxable income. If your asset allocation calls for investing in real estate, holding it in a 401k or IRA can allow more of your money to remain invested, rather than having to use it to pay for taxes. And if you're holding in a Roth IRA, you get that tax free. But bonds, a decidedly non-aggressive asset, also throw off a lot of taxable income. You're able to hold them in a tax-advantaged account and not pay taxes on the income until you withdraw it from the account (or tax free in the case of a Roth account.) An aggressive stock fund that is primarily expected to provide returns via price appreciation would do well in a taxable account because there's likely little tax consequence to you until it is sold.

negative: If you don't mind being a terrible person to achieve personal success - it is a good book. I've had to non-pleasure of doing business with this guy and he is an absolute ass. He will weasel out of this because he is good at what he does.

negative: I can't agree more. If you have unique IP and know-how you can very well be a single successful proprietorship. That said you can even be more successful, if you can grow beyond that. The reality is that you have to be an exceptional salesperson, if you want to grow a pure commoditized services business. Otherwise you just keep on adding overhead and there is very little left over for you. Unless of course you make your money off the back of your employees.

negative: 'What' you have won't sell. 'Why' you do what you do and what you 'believe' is what will sell.  Don't sell a product, sell an idea.  As someone earlier said; we buy on emotions.  You want: Why - How - What  Not: What you have - How it can benefit - Why it's great  Hit home with someone and they'll buy into your passion, share your emotion, and trust your enthusiasm.  Posiyivity is also key. No-one wants to think about negatives or be around a negative person. Trigger positive thoughts and emotions in people with your marketing and when you speak to them and they'll be more inclined to listen.  And as someone else mentioned; arrogance. Don't be that person as no customer likes dealing with arrogance. Your product may be too good to you but put yourself in a customers' shoes that doesn't understand your product. Think of how it would baffle them and why.

negative: "Mathematically it seems like the expected rate of return, whatever that might be, is the same for both. An aggressive strategy is higher risk and higher reward. A conservative strategy is lower risk and lower reward. That is not true.  Roughly, the mathematical analogue of ""higher risk and higher reward"" is ""higher standard deviation and higher mean"".  In other words, the aggressive strategy does have a higher expected rate of return (higher mean).  Its disadvantage is that it has a higher likelihood of incurring intermediate losses (and/or higher magnitude of intermediate losses) on the way. This is classically illustrated with the following chart -  from Vanguard. You can see that the average return is greater the riskier the portfolio (i.e., the more allocated to stocks relative to bonds), but this higher average return comes at the price of a greater range of possible returns.  With an aggressive portfolio, you take a greater risk of losses at any given moment for a greater chance of gains over a long period. Given this, it should be obvious why the advice is to be aggressive early on.  Early in life, you don't care about whether your current position is up or down, because you're not taking the money out.  If your portfolio is down, you just leave the money in there until it goes back up again.  Later in life, you need to spend the money; you now care about whether your current position is up or down, because you can't afford to wait out a down market and may have to realize a loss by selling. It's important to note that the expected return is always greater for a higher-risk portfolio, as is the expected risk; the expected rate of return doesn't magically change as you age.  What changes is your ability to absorb losses to hold out for later gains."

negative: You need to know your costs. Some are fixed. Review them.  There are some expenses that are variable. Review the amount and if it is reasonable.  Review your large orders. Are they increasing?  Ask him how he thinks people will steal from the company. Did he see a large order and the customer will default?

negative: "In other words, does the market have control over sale numbers or do I? You both do, just like for the bike.  You have control over the price you ask, and the buyer has control over the price they pay.  If the two do not align, no sale takes place. Your question uses the words ""sell"" and ""sale"" ambiguously.  You can decide to ask for any price you want.  You cannot actually sell anything until someone agrees to buy what you are offering."

negative: I disagree with the other posters, the best sales person has a very easy job, but a great network of connections to clients. The company is paying a lot for the connections, because that's how they make money, and some amount of money for the salesperson's (less technical) work.  Depending on how much you trust the management above you to treat you well, you should either continue working hard and hopefully get promoted, or slouch, do no more work than your job requires, and write off any advancement at your current employer.

negative: "Past results are not a predictor of future results. There is no explicit upper bound on a market, and even if individual companies' values were remaining unchanged one would expect the market to drift upward in the long term. Plus, there's been some  shift from managing companies for dividends to managing stocks for growth, which will tend to increase the upward push. Trying to time the market -- to guess when it's going to move in any particular direction -- is usually closer to gambling than investing. The simplest answer remains a combination of buy-and-hold and dollar-cost averaging. Buy at a constant number of dollars per month (or whatever frequency you prefer), and you will automatically buy more when the stock/fund is lower, less when it is higher. That takes advantage of downturns as buying opportunities without missing out on possible gains at the other end. Personally, I add a bit of contrarian buying to that -- I increased my buying another notch or two while the market was depressed, since I had money I wouldn't need any time soon (buy and hold) and I was reasonably confident that enough of the market would come back strongly enough that I wasn't at significant risk of losing the investment. That's one of the things which causes me to be categorized as an ""aggressive investor"" even though I'm operating with a very vanilla mix of mutual funds and not attempting to micromanage my money. My goal is to have the money work for me, not vice versa."


query: Dividend yield for multiple years?

positive: I've recently discovered that Morningstar provides 5yr avgs of a few numbers, including dividend yield, for free.  For example, see the right-hand column in the 'Current Valuation' section, 5th row down for the 5yr avg dividend yield for PG: http://financials.morningstar.com/valuation/price-ratio.html?t=PG&region=usa&culture=en-US Another site that probably has this, and alot more, is YCharts.  But that is a membership site so you'll need to join (and pay a membership fee I believe.)   YCharts is supposedly pretty good for long-term statistical information and trend graphs for comparing and tracking stocks.

positive: Dividend yield is a tough thing to track because it's a moving target.  Dividends are paid periodically the yield is calculated based on the stock price when the dividend is declared (usually, though some services may update this more frequently).   I like to calculate my own dividend by annualizing the dividend payment divided by my cost basis per share.  As an example, say you have shares in X, Co.  X issues a quarterly dividend of $1 per share and the share price is $100; coincidentally this is the price at which you purchased your shares. But a few years goes by and now X issues it's quarterly dividend of $1.50 per share, and the share price is $160. However your shares only cost you $100. Your annual yield on X is 6%, not the published 3.75%.  All of this is to say that looking back on dividend yields is somewhat similar to nailing jello to the wall.  Do you look at actual dividends paid through the year divided by share price?  Do you look at the annualized dividend at the time of issue then average those?  The stock price will fluctuate, that will change the yield; depending on where you bought your stock, your actual yield will vary from the published amount as well.

negative: "The key is to look at total return, that is dividend yields plus capital growth. Some stocks have yields of 5%-7%, and no growth. In that case, you get the dividends, and not a whole lot more. These are called dividend stocks. Other stocks pay no dividends. But if they can grow at 15%-20% a year or more, you're fine.These are called growth stocks. The safest way is to get a ""balanced"" combination of dividends and growth, say a yield of 3% growing at 8%-10% a year, for a total return of 11%-13%. meaning that you get the best of both worlds.These are called dividend growth stocks."

negative: Dividend prices are per share, so the amount that you get for a dividend is determined by the number of shares that you own and the amount of the dividend per share. That's all. People like to look at dividend yield because it lets them compare different investments; that's done by dividing the dividend by the value of the stock, however determined. That's the percentage that the question mentions. A dividend of $1 per share when the share price is $10 gives a 10% dividend yield. A dividend of $2 per share when the share price is $40 gives a 5% dividend yield. If you're choosing an investment, the dividend yield gives you more information than the amount of the dividend.

negative: "$36 dividend/900 DJIA = 4% 5.5% bond yield = ($36 dividend/660 DJIA) Graham wrote this at a very different time in financial markets- interest rates were much higher, and the DJIA much lower. In addition, bonds were yielding more than stocks, unlike today when the DJIA % the 10yr Treasury yield 2.63% and 2.13% respectively. In addition, his ""weigher of the odds"" suggests waiting to invest until equity prices are lower (usually dividends aren't reduced), and therefore the DJIA dividend yield would rise relative to bond yields."

negative: Dividend yields are a product of the dollar amount paid to shareholders and the stock price. Dividends yields rise when a company is shunned by investors. It may be shunned because the earnings and/or dividend are at risk. Recent examples are SDRL and KMI. Most investors  would love an 8% yield so I would wonder why the stock is being ignored or shunned.

negative: Yield can be thought of as the interest rate you would receive from that investment in the form of a dividend for stocks or interest payments on a bond.  The yield takes into account the anticipated amount to be received per share/unit per year and the current price of the investment.   Of course, the yield is not a guaranteed return like a savings account.  If the investment yield is 4% when you buy, it can drop in value such that you actually lose money during your hold period, despite receiving income from the dividend or interest payments.

negative: Indices such as SP500 are typically including dividends - the payment of dividends doesn't impact the value of the index. Where can I find data on these dividends?  I found data on dividend yields, but these give me access only to the sum of dividends over the last year. This in turn can change either because there are new dividends being paid, or because you stop counting last year's dividends...

negative: edit: nevermind.  i glanced and thought you meant total market mutual funds.    For fixed income - if you want to get a good analysis of the bond market/interest rates, i would suggest you read some of bill gross' letters off the pimco site - a lot of discussion about our current zero bound interest rates.    For equities - I have the view that if the economy is doing well, people are less inclined to focus on dividend yield...thereby lowering the relative multiples on dividend/fcf yielding stocks.  So total return fund may be trading slightly cheaper.

negative: Ok you're looking at this in a very confusing way. First, as said by CapitalNumb3rs, the dividend yield is the dividends paid in the year as a percent of the stock price. Given this fact then if the stock price moves down and the dividend stays the same then the yield increases. Company's don't usually pay out on a yield basis, that's mostly just a calculation to measure how strong a dividend is. This could mean either A. The stock is underpriced and will rise which will lower the yield to a more normal level or B. the company is not doing as well and eventually the dividends will decrease to a point where the yield again looks more normal.   Second off let's look at it in a more realistic way that still takes into account your assumptions:  **YEAR 1** 1. Instead of assuming buying 35% let's put this into a share amount. Let's say there are 1,000,000 shares so you just bought 350k shares for $700k. You paid a price of $2/share. Let's assume the market decides that's a fair price and it stays that way through the end of year 1. This gives us a market capitalization of $2 million.  2. The dividend paid out at year 1 is $60k so you could calculate on a per share basis which would be a dividend of $60k / 1 million shares or a $0.06 dividend per share. Our stock price is still at $2.00 so our yield comes out to $0.06 / $2.00 or 3.0%  **YEAR 2** Assuming no additional shares issued there are still a total of 1 million shares outstanding. You owned 350k and now want to purchase another 50k (5% of outstanding share float). The market price you are able to purchase the 50k shares at has now changed which means that share price is now valued at $1.50 / share. We have a dividend paid out at $100k, which comes out to a dividend per share of $0.10. We have a share value of $1.50 and the $0.10 dividend per share giving us a new yield of 6.66%.   **CONCLUSION:** There are many factors that can cause a company's stock price to fluctuate, some of it is hype based but some of it is a result of material changes. In your case the stock went down 25%. In most scenarios where a stock would have that much decline it would likely either not have been paying a dividend in the first place or would maybe not be paying one for much longer. Most companies that pay dividends are larger and more mature companies with a steady, healthy and predictable cash flow. Also most companies that are that size would not trade a stock under $3.00, I know this is just an example but the scenario is definitely a bit extreme in terms of the price drop and dividend increase. Again the yield is just a calculation that depends on the dividend that is usually planned in advance and the stock price that can fluctuate for many reasons. I hope this made everything more clear and let me know if you have any other questions.

negative: "Probably the most important thing in evaluating a dividend yield is to compare it to ITSELF (in the past). If the dividend yield is higher than it has been in the past, the stock may be cheap. If it is lower, the stock may be expensive. Just about every stock has a ""normal"" yield for itself. (It's zero for non-dividend paying stocks.) This is based on the stock's perceived quality, growth potential, and other factors. So a utility that normally yields 5% and is now paying 3% is probably expensive (the price in the denominator is too high), while a growth stock that normally yields 2% and is now yielding 3% (e.g. Intel or McDonald'sl), may be cheap."

negative: "is it worth it? You state the average yield on a stock as 2-3%, but seem to have come up with this by looking at the yield of an S&P500 index.  Not every stock in that index is paying a dividend and many of them that are paying have such a low yield that a dividend investor would not even consider them.  Unless you plan to buy the index itself, you are distorting the possible income by averaging in all these ""duds"". You are also assuming your income is directly proportional to the amount of yield you could buy right now.  But that's a false measure because you are talking about building up your investment by contributing $2k-$3k/month.  No matter what asset you choose to invest in, it's going to take some time to build up to asset(s) producing $20k/year income at that rate.  Investments today will have time in market to grow in multiple ways. Given you have some time, immediate yield is not what you should be measuring dividends, or other investments, on in my opinion.  Income investors usually focus on YOC (Yield On Cost), a measure of income to be received this year based on the purchase price of the asset producing that income.  If you do go with dividend investing AND your investments grow the dividends themselves on a regular basis, it's not unheard of for YOC to be north of 6% in 10 years.  The same can be true of rental property given that rents can rise. Achieving that with dividends has alot to do with picking the right companies, but you've said you are not opposed to working hard to invest correctly, so I assume researching and teaching yourself how to lower the risk of picking the wrong companies isn't something you'd be opposed to. I know more about dividend growth investing than I do property investing, so I can only provide an example of a dividend growth entry strategy: Many dividend growth investors have goals of not entering a new position unless the current yield is over 3%, and only then when the company has a long, consistent, track record of growing EPS and dividends at a good rate, a low debt/cashflow ratio to reduce risk of dividend cuts, and a good moat to preserve competitiveness of the company relative to its peers.  (Amongst many other possible measures.)  They then buy only on dips, or downtrends, where the price causes a higher yield and lower than normal P/E at the same time that they have faith that they've valued the company correctly for a 3+ year, or longer, hold time. There are those who self-report that they've managed to build up a $20k+ dividend payment portfolio in less than 10 years.  Check out Dividend Growth Investor's blog for an example.  There's a whole world of Dividend Growth Investing strategies and writings out there and the commenters on his blog will lead to links for many of them. I want to point out that income is not just for those who are old.  Some people planned, and have achieved, the ability to retire young purely because they've built up an income portfolio that covers their expenses.   Assuming you want that, the question is whether stock assets that pay dividends is the type of investment process that resonates with you, or if something else fits you better.  I believe the OP says they'd prefer long hold times, with few activities once the investment decisions are made, and isn't dissuaded by significant work to identify his investments.  Both real estate and stocks fit the latter, but the subtypes of dividend growth stocks and hands-off property investing (which I assume means paying for a property manager) are a better fit for the former.  In my opinion, the biggest additional factor differentiating these two is liquidity concerns.  Post-tax stock accounts are going to be much easier to turn into emergency cash than a real estate portfolio.  Whether that's an important factor depends on personal situation though."

negative: The S&P 500 is an index, you can't buy shares of an index, but you can find index funds to invest in. Each company in that fund that pays dividends will do so on their own schedule, and the fund you've invested in will either distribute dividends or accumulate them (re-invest), this is pre-defined, not something they'd decide quarter to quarter. If the fund distributes dividends, they will likely combine the dividends they receive and distribute to you quarterly.  The value you've referenced represents the total annual dividend across the index, dividend yield for S&P500 is currently ~1.9%, so if you invested $10,000 a year ago in a fund that matched the S&P 500, you'd have ~$190 in dividend yield.

negative: There have been many interesting and correct answers but to give a direct answer to your first question, dividend yield is simply dividend over current share price. So, if the share price drops, your dividend yield increases proportionately. Dividend yield is not something one should use as the only source of information of whether a stock is a good/bad buy. It does not show many important factors: the riskiness of the company business, its financial position, profitability, ability to generate cash. Furthermore, dividend yield is just a snapshot of an income gain at a given point in time. It does not mean that this very dividend policy is going to continue in the future (especially not so if the company finances this dividend payments using not its own cash reserves but outside capital by issuing debt securities, which is unsustainable).

negative: Join me for a look at the Quote for SPY.  A yield of 1.82%. So over a year's time, your $100K investment will give you $1820 in dividends.  The Top 10 holdings show that Apple is now 3% of the S&P. With a current dividend of 2.3%. Every stock in the S&P has its own different dividend. (Although the zeros are all the same. Not every stock has a dividend.) The aggregate gets you to the 1.82% current dividend. Dividends are accumulated and paid out quarterly, regardless of which months the individual stocks pay.

negative: A 20% dividend yield in most companies would make me very suspicious. Most dividend yields are in the 2-3% range right now and a 20% yield would make me worry that the company was in trouble, the stock price had crashed and the dividend was going to be cut, the company was going to go out of business or both.

negative: Hart's answer regarding the difference between an index and a stock aside, remember that dividend yield is a passive measure.  It takes the announced dividend (which is a $/share amount) and divides it by the current market price.   So you can't assume that if you buy a stock that had a dividend yield of 4% for $100 that you're guaranteed 4% of the stock price in dividends.  If the price of the stock doubles, you'd still get $4, but the yield would drop to 2%.  Or the company could reduce (or even suspend) its dividends, which would reduce the yield if the stock price stayed flat. For an index like the S&P, it's easier to measure dividends on % yield terms rather then $/share terms since you'd have to own shares in every single company to get that amount, but on average the stocks in the S&P 500 pay X% in dividends (which are typically quarterly) - some pay more than that, some less, and some none at all.

negative: You might want to look up Dividend Yield Trap. Many stocks with high dividend yields got that way not because they decided to increase their dividend, but because their prices have dropped. Usually the company is not in good shape and will reduce their dividend, and you're stuck with a low-yield stock which has also decreased in price.

negative: what do you mean exactly?  Do you have a future target price and projected future dividend payments and you want the present value (time discounted price) of those? Edit: The DCF formula is difficult to use for stocks because the future price is unknown.  It is more applicable to fixed-income instruments like coupon bonds.  You could use it but you need to predict / speculate a future price for the stock. You are better off using the standard stock analysis stuff: Learn Stock Basics - How To Read A Stock Table/Quote The P/E ratio and the Dividend yield are the two most important.  The good P/E ratio for a mature company would be around 20.  For smaller and growing companies, a higher P/E ratio is acceptable.  The dividend yield is important because it tells you how much your shares grow even if the stock price stays unchanged for the year. HTH

negative: Your cons say it all. I would not be buying stocks based soley on a high dividend yield. In fact companies with very high dividend yields tend to do poorer than companies investing at least part of their earnings back into the company. Make sure at least that the company's earnings is more than the dividend yield being offered.

negative: Having a good dividend yield doesn't guarantee that a stock is safe. In the future, the company may run into financial trouble, stop paying dividends, or even go bankrupt. For this reason, you should never buy a stock just because it has a high dividend yield. You also need some criteria to determine whether that stock is safe to buy. Personally, I consider a stock is reasonably safe if it meets the following criteria:

negative: One thing I would add to @littleadv (buy an ETF instead of doing your own) answer would be ensure that the dividend yield matches.  Expense ratios aren't the only thing that eat you with mutual funds: the managers can hold on to a large percentage of the dividends that the stocks normally pay (for instance, if by holding onto the same stocks, you would normally receive 3% a year in dividends, but by having a mutual fund, you only receive .75%, that's an additional cost to you).  If you tried to match the DJIA on your own, you would have an advantage of receiving the dividend yields on the stocks paying dividends.  The downsides: distributing your investments to match and the costs of actual purchases.

negative: "The term you're looking for is yield (though it's defined the other way around from your ""payout efficiency"", as dividend / share price, which makes no substantive difference). You're simply saying that you want to buy high-yield shares, which is a common investment strategy. But you have to consider that often a high-yielding share has a reason for the high yield. You probably don't want to buy shares in a company whose current yield is 10% but will go into liquidation next year."

negative: The dividend yield can be used to compare a stock to other forms of investments that generate income to the investor - such as bonds.  I could purchase a stock that pays out a certain dividend yield or purchase a bond that pays out a certain interest.  Of course, there are many other variables to consider in addition to yield when making this type of investment decision. The dividend yield can be an important consideration if you are looking to invest in stocks for an income stream in addition to investing in stocks for gain by a rising stock price. The reason to use Dividend/market price is that it changes the dividend from a flat number such as $1 to a percentage of the stock price, which thus allows it to be more directly compared with bonds and such which return a percentage yeild.

negative: What you're referring to is the yield.  The issue with these sorts of calculations is that the dividend isn't guaranteed until it's declared.  It may have paid the quarterly dividend like clockwork for the last decade, that does not guarantee it will pay this quarter.   Regarding question number 2.  Yield is generally an after the fact calculation.  Dividends are paid out of current or retained earnings.  If the company becomes hot and the stock price doubles, but earnings are relatively similar, the dividend will not be doubled to maintain the prior yield; the yield will instead be halved because the dividend per share was made more expensive to attain due to the increased share price.   As for the calculation, obviously your yield will likely vary from the yield published on services like Google and Yahoo finance.  The variation is strictly based on the price you paid for the share.  Dividend per share is a declared amount.  Assuming a $10 share paying a quarterly dividend of $0.25 your yield is: Now figure that you paid $8.75 for the share. Now the way dividends are allocated to shareholders depends on dates published when the dividend is declared.  The day you purchase the share, the day your transaction clears etc are all vital to being paid a particular dividend.  Here's a link to the SEC with related information: https://www.sec.gov/answers/dividen.htm I suppose it goes without saying but, historical dividend payments should not be your sole evaluation criteria.  Personally, I would be extremely wary of a company paying a 40% dividend ($1 quarterly dividend on a $10 stock), it's very possible that in your example bar corp is a more sound investment. Additionally, this has really nothing to do with P/E (price/earnings) ratios.

negative: I use the following method. For each stock I hold long term, I have an individual table which records dates, purchases, sales, returns of cash, dividends, and way at the bottom, current value of the holding. Since I am not taking the income, and reinvesting across the portfolio, and XIRR won't take that into account, I build an additional column where I 'gross up' the future value up to today() of that dividend by the portfolio average yield at the date the dividend is received. The grossing up formula is divi*(1+portfolio average return%)^((today-dividend date-suitable delay to reinvest)/365.25) This is equivalent to a complex XMIRR computation but much simpler, and produces very accurate views of return.  The 'weighted combined' XIRR calculated across all holdings then agrees very nearly with the overall portfolio XIRR. I have done this for very along time.  TR1933 Yes, 1933 is my year of birth and still re investing divis!

negative: Is it safe to invest in a portfolio of dividend stocks yielding 7-9% with the money borrowed at 3-4% from one of these brokerages? Yes and no. It depends on your risk profile! Any investment has its risks of losing your capital, but not investing is a guaranteed risk, as you will be guaranteed to fall behind the rate of inflation. Regarding investing on margin, this can increase your gains but can also increase your loses. Regarding the stock market - when investing in stocks you should not only look at the dividend rate but also the capital gain or loss potential. Remember in regards to investing on margin, if the share price drop too much you can get a margin call no matter how much dividend you are getting. It is no use gaining 9% in dividend yield per year if you are losing 15% or more in capital each year. Also, what is the risk of the dividend rate being cut back or dividends not being paid at all in the future? These are some of the risks you should consider before investing and derive a risk management plan as part of your investment plan before you invest. No investment is totally safe or risk free, but it is less risky than not investing at all, as long as you understand the risks involved and have a risk management plan in place as part of your overall investment plan.

negative: ">  If the stock price goes down it wouldn't make sense that ABC had a higher dividend yield, so my argument was you have to make assume the stock price went down because it could have cost less for other reasons, but you don't have to assume the dividend yield which would make it a good investment.   I'm not sure I understand your argument. The wording doesn't seem clear to me (""you have to make assume""? make assume? ""but you don't have to assume the dividend yield"" assume it what?)  Dividend yield has a negative correlation with stock price. If price goes down, all else being equal, yield rises."

negative: "Dividend rate is ""dividend per share"" over a specified time period, usually a year. So in the first example, if the company paid a $1/share dividend over the year before the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $100, while if it paid the $1/share the year after the stock dividend the shareholder would receive $105. The company could have achieved the same thing by paying total dividends of $1.05/share, which is what the last phrase of the last quoted paragraph is saying. Here's an Investopedia page on dividend rate. Also, what you're calling ""payout ratio"" is really ""dividend yield"". ""Payout ratio"" is how much of the company's net earnings are paid out in dividends. That's all in the US, I could see the terms being used differently outside the US."

negative: For bonds bought at par (the face value of the bond, like buying a CD for $1000) the payment it makes is the same as yield. You pay $1000 and get say, $40 per year or 4%. If you buy it for more or less than that $1000, say $900, there's some math (not for me, I use a finance calculator) to tell you your return taking the growth to maturity into account, i.e. the extra $100 you get when you get the full $1000 back. Obviously, for bonds, you care about whether the comp[any or municipality will pay you back at all, and then you care about how much you'll make when then do. In that order. For stocks, the picture is abit different as some companies give no dividend but reinvest all profits, think Berkshire Hathaway. On the other hand, many people believe that the dividend is important, and choose to buy stocks that start with a nice yield, a $30 stock with a $1/yr dividend is 3.3% yield. Sounds like not much, but over time you expect the company to grow, increase in value and increase its dividend. 10 years hence you may have a $40 stock and the dividend has risen to $1.33. Now it's 4.4% of the original investment, and you sit on that gain as well.

negative: "He is wrong.  Using Total Return (Reinvesting Dividend), from the peak in December 1999, it only took 6 years to recover.   You can check the data for free here. Make sure you choose ""Gross Index Level"".  ACWI Index is Developed Markets + Emerging Markets.  World Index is Developed Markets only."

negative: This answer contains three assumptions: New Share Price: Old Share Price * 1.0125 Quarterly Dividend: (New Share Price*0.01) * # of Shares in Previous Quarter Number of Shares: Shares from Previous Quarter + Quarterly Dividend/New Share Price For example, starting from right after Quarter One: New share price: $20 * 1.0125 = 20.25  1000 shares @ $20.25 a share yields $20.25 * 0.01 * 1000 = $202.5 dividend New shares: $202.5/20.25 = 10 shares Quarter Two: New share price: $20.503 1010 shares @ 20.503 yields $20.503*0.01*1010 = $207.082 dividend New shares: $207.082/20.503 = 10.1 shares Repeat over many cycles: 8 Quarters (2 years): 1061.52 shares @ $21.548 a share 20 Quarters (5 years): 1196.15 shares @ $25.012 a share 40 Quarters (10 years): 1459.53 shares @ $32.066 a share Graphically this looks like this:  It's late enough someone may want to check my math ;). But I'd also assert that a 5% growth rate and a 4% dividend rate is pretty optimistic.

negative: "You have to be the owner of record before the ex-dividend date, which is not the same day as the date the dividend is paid. This also implies that if you sell on or after the ex-dividend date, you'll still get the dividend, even if you no longer own the stock.  Keep in mind, also, that the quoted price of the stock (and on any open orders that are not specifically marked as ""do not reduce"") on its ex-dividend date is dropped by the amount of the dividend, first thing in the morning before trading starts. If you happen to be the first order of the day, before market forces cause the price to move, you'll end up with zero gain, since the dividend is built into the price, and you got the same value out of it -- the dividend in cash, and the remaining value in stock. As pointed out in the comments (Thanks @Brick), you'll still get a market price for your trade, but the price reduction will have had some impact on the first trade of the day. Source: NYSE Rule 118.30 Also, remember that the dividend yield is expressed in annualized terms. So a 3% yield can only be fully realized by receiving all of the dividend payments made by the company for the year. You can, of course, forget about individual companies and just look for dividends to create your own effective yield over time. But, see the final point... Finally, if you keep buying and selling just to play games with the dividends, you're going to pay far more in transaction fees than you will earn in dividends. And, depending on your individual circumstances, you may end up paying more in capital gains taxes."

negative: Dividends are supposed to be paid from company profits (in the current or previous financial years), there are nuances around what profits mean from country to country, but the link is the UK definition from the HMRC. Profits from previous financial years are commonly called retained earnings. There are a few items around this