Which dividend bearing stock should be chosen by price?
Don't ever quantify a stock's preference/performance just based on the dividend it is paying out Volatility defined by movements in the the stock's price, affected by factors embedded in the stock e.g. the corporation, the business it is in, the economy, the management etc etc. Apple wasn't paying dividends but people were still buying into it. Same with Amazon, Berkshire, Google. These companies create value by investing their earnings back into their company and this is reflected in their share prices. Their earnings create more value in this way for the stockholders. The holding structures of these companies also help them in their motives. Supposedly $100 invested in either stocks. For keeping things easy, you invested at the same time in both, single annual dividend and prices more or less remain constant. Company A: $5/share at 20% annual dividend yield.  Dividend = $20 Company B: $10/share at 20% annual dividend yield  Dividend = $20 You receive the same dividend in both cases. Volatility willn't affect you unless you are trading, or the stock market tanks, or some very bad news comes out of either company or on the economy. Volatility in the long term averages out, except in specific outlier cases e.g. Lehman bankruptcy and the financial crash which are rare but do happen. In general case the %price movements in both stocks would more or less follow the markets (not exactly though) except when relevant news for either corporations come out. Price doesn't mean anything.  Price is simply total value (market capitalization) divided by number of shares. Make sure you consider historical dividends when hunting for big yields.  It's very possible that the data you're pulling is only the annualized yield on the most recent dividend payment. Typically dividends are declared in dollar terms.  The total amount of the dividend to be issued is then divided by the number of shares and paid out.  Companies rarely (probably never but rarely to avoid the peanut gallery comments about the one company that does this) decide dividend payments based on some proportion of the stock price.   Between company A and company B paying approximately the same historical yield, I'd look at both companies to make sure neither is circling the tank.  If both look strong, I'd probably buy a bit of both.  If one looks terrible buy the other one.  Don't pick based on the price. 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. In the scenario you describe, the first thing I would look at would be liquidity.  In other words, how easy is it to buy and sell shares.  If the average daily volume of one share is low compared to the average daily volume of the other, then the more actively traded share would be the more attractive.  Low volume shares will have larger bid-offer spreads than high volume shares, so if you need to get out of position quickly you will be at risk of being forced to take a lowball offer. Having said that, it is important to understand that high yielding shares have high yields for a reason.  Namely, the market does not think much of the company's prospects and that it is likely that a cut in the dividend is coming in the near future. In general, the nominal price of a share is not important.  If two companies have equal prospect, then the percentage movement in their share price will be about the same, so the net profit or loss you realise will be about the same.
Well you you purchased the shares at a weighted average price of $1.94 per share (350k at $2.00 and 50k at $1.50). The shares are now trading at $1.50 assuming the market hasn't changed since you last purchased stock. So you're down $0.44/ share from the stock but you have received ~$0.16/ share in dividends. You are down $0.28/ share which means on paper you have lost $64k on your $775k investment (down ~8.2% of total investment). So I'd say the investment is not performing well no. If a stock pays a dividend it usually should not dip 25% unless something is up with the business. I can not think of any example where an investment can be said to be performing well while at the same time the stock price decreases unless you are shorting the stock. "Your employer sends the money that you choose to contribute, plus employer match if any, to the administrator of the 401k plan who invests the money as you have directed, choosing between the alternatives offered by the administrator. Typically, the alternatives are several different mutual funds with different investment styles, e.g. a S&P 500 index fund, a bond fund, a money-market fund, etc.  Now, a statement such as ""I see my 401k is up 10%"" is meaningless unless you  tell us how you are making the comparison. For example, if you have just started employment and $200 goes into your 401k each month and is invested in a money-market fund (these are paying close to 0% interest  these days), then your 11th contribution increases your  401k from $2000 to $2200 and your 401k is ""up 10%"". More generally, suppose for simplicity that all the  401k investment is in just one (stock) mutual fund and that you own 100 shares of the fund as of right now.  Suppose also that your next contribution will not occur for three weeks when you get your next paycheck, at which time additional shares of the mutual fund will be purchased Now, the value of the mutual fund shares (often referred to as net asset value or NAV) fluctuates as stock prices rise and fall, and so the  401k balance = number of shares times NAV changes in accordance with these fluctuations. So,  if the NAV increases by 10% in the next two weeks, your 401k balance will have increased by 10%.  But you still own only 100 shares of the mutual fund. You cannot use the 10% increase  in value to buy more shares in the mutual fund  because there is no money to pay for the additional shares  you wish to purchase.  Notice that there is no point selling some of the shares (at the 10% higher NAV) to get cash  because you will be purchasing shares at the higher NAV too. You could, of course, sell shares of the stock mutual fund at the higher NAV and buy shares of some other fund available to you in the 401k plan.  One advantage of doing this inside the 401k plan is that you don't have to pay taxes (now) on the 10% gain that you have made on the sale. Outside tax-deferred plans such as 401k and IRA plans, such gains would be taxable in the year of the sale.  But note that selling the shares of the stock fund and buying something else indicates that you believe that the NAV of your stock mutual fund is unlikely to increase any further in the near future. A third possibility for your 401k being up by 10% is that the mutual fund paid a dividend or made a capital gains distribution in the two week period that we are discussing.  The NAV falls when such events occur, but if you have chosen to reinvest the dividends and capital gains, then the number of shares that you own goes up.  With the same example as before, the NAV goes up 10% in two weeks at which time a capital gains distribution occurs, and so the NAV falls back to where it was before.  So, before the capital gains distribution, you owned 100 shares at $10 NAV which went up to $11 NAV (10% increase in NAV) for a net increase in 401k balance from $1000 to $1100. The mutual fund distributes capital gains in the amount of $1 per share sending the NAV back to $10, but you take the $100 distribution and plow it back into the mutual fund, purchasing 10 shares at the new $10 NAV.  So now you own 110 shares at $10 NAV (no net change in price in two weeks) but your 401k balance is $1100, same as it was before the capital gains distribution and you are up 10%.  Or, you could have chosen to invest the distributions into, say, a bond fund available in your 401k plan and still be up 10%, with no change in your stock fund holding, but a new investment of $100 in a  bond fund. So, being up 10% can mean different things and does not necessarily mean that the ""return"" can be used to buy more shares." "I'm not a financial expert, but saying that paying a $1 dividend will reduce the value of the stock by $1 sounds like awfully simple-minded reasoning to me. It appears to be based on the assumption that the price of a stock is equal to the value of the assets of a company divided by the total number of shares. But that simply isn't true. You don't even need to do any in-depth analysis to prove it. Just look at share prices over a few days. You should easily be able to find stocks whose price varied wildly. If, say, a company becomes the target of a federal investigation, the share price will plummet the day the announcement is made. Did the company's assets really disappear that day? No. What's happened is that the company's long term prospects are now in doubt. Or a company announces a promising new product. The share price shoots up. They may not have sold a single unit of the new product yet, they haven't made a dollar. But their future prospects now look improved. Many factors go into determining a stock price. Sure, total assets is a factor. But more important is anticipated future earning. I think a very simple case could be made that if a stock never paid any dividends, and if everyone knew it would never pay any dividends, that stock is worthless. The stock will never produce any profit to the owner. So why should you be willing to pay anything for it? One could say, The value could go up and you could sell at a profit. But on what basis would the value go up? Why would investors be willing to pay larger and larger amounts of money for an asset that produces zero income? Update I think I understand the source of the confusion now, so let me add to my answer. Suppose that a company's stock is selling for, say, $10. And to simplify the discussion let's suppose that there is absolutely nothing affecting the value of that stock except an expected dividend. The company plans to pay a dividend on a specific date of $1 per share. This dividend is announced well in advance. Everyone knows that it will be paid, and everyone is extremely confidant that in fact the company really will pay it -- they won't run out of money or any such. Then in a pure market, we would expect that as the date of that dividend approaches, the price of the stock would rise until the day before the dividend is paid, it is $11. Then the day after the dividend is paid the price would fall back to $10. Why? Because the person who owns the stock on the ""dividend day"" will get that $1. So if you bought the stock the day before the dividend, the next day you would immediately receive $1. If without the dividend the stock is worth $10, then the day before the dividend the stock is worth $11 because you know that the next day you will get a $1 ""refund"". If you buy the stock the day after the dividend is paid, you will not get the $1 -- it will go to the person who had the stock yesterday -- so the value of the stock falls back to the ""normal"" $10. So if you look at the value of a stock immediately after a dividend is paid, yes, it will be less than it was the day before by an amount equal to the dividend. (Plus or minus all the other things that affect the value of a stock, which in many cases would totally mask this effect.) But this does not mean that the dividend is worthless. Just the opposite. The reason the stock price fell was precisely because the dividend has value. BUT IT ONLY HAS VALUE TO THE PERSON WHO GETS IT. It does me no good that YOU get a $1 dividend. I want ME to get the money. So if I buy the stock after the dividend was paid, I missed my chance. So sure, in the very short term, a stock loses value after paying a dividend. But this does not mean that dividends in general reduce the value of a stock. Just the opposite. The price fell because it had gone up in anticipation of the dividend and is now returning to the ""normal"" level. Without the dividend, the price would never have gone up in the first place. Imagine you had a company with negligible assets. For example, an accounting firm that rents office space so it doesn't own a building, its only tangible assets are some office supplies and the like. So if the company liquidates, it would be worth pretty much zero. Everybody knows that if liquidated, the company would be worth zero. Further suppose that everyone somehow knows that this company will never, ever again pay a dividend. (Maybe federal regulators are shutting the company down because it's products were declared unacceptably hazardous, or the company was built around one genius who just died, etc.) What is the stock worth? Zero. It is an investment that you KNOW has a zero return. Why would anyone be willing to pay anything for it? It's no answer to say that you might buy the stock in the hope that the price of the stock will go up and you can sell at a profit even with no dividends. Why would anyone else pay anything for this stock? Well, unless their stock certificates are pretty and people like to collect them or something like that. Otherwise you're supposing that people would knowingly buy into a pyramid scheme. (Of course in real life there are usually uncertainties. If a company is dying, some people may believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is still hope of reviving it. Etc.) Don't confuse the value of the assets of a company with the value of its stock. They are related, of course -- all else being equal, a company with a billion dollars in assets will have a higher market capitalization than a company with ten dollars in assets. But you can't calculate the price of a company's stock by adding up the value of all its assets, subtracting liabilities, and dividing by the number of shares. That's just not how it works. Long term, the value of any stock is not the value of the assets but the net present value of the total future expected dividends. Subject to all sorts of complexities in real life." Would you mind adding where that additional value comes from, if not from the losses of other investors?  You asked this in a comment, but it seems to be the key to the confusion.   Corporations generate money (profits, paid as dividends) from sales.  Sales trade products for money.  The creation of the product creates value.  A car is worth more than General Motors pays for its components and inputs, even including labor and overhead as inputs.  That's what profit is:  added value.  The dividend is the return that the stock owner gets for owning the stock.   This can be a bit confusing in the sense that some stocks don't pay dividends.  The theory is that the stock price is still based on the future dividends (or the liquidation price, which you could also consider a type of dividend).  But the current price is mostly based on the likelihood that the stock price will increase rather than any expected dividends during ownership of the stock.   A comment calls out the example of Berkshire Hathaway.  Berkshire Hathaway is a weird case.  It operates more like a mutual fund than a company.  As such, investors prefer that it reinvest its money rather than pay a dividend.  If investors want money from it, they sell shares to other investors.  But that still isn't really a zero sum game, as the stock increases in value over time.   There are other stocks that don't pay dividends.  For example, Digital Equipment Corporation went through its entire existence without ever paying a dividend.  It merged with Compaq, paying investors for owning the stock.   Overall, you can see this in that the stock market goes up on average.  It might have a few losing years, but pick a long enough time frame, and the market will increase during it.  If you sell a stock today, it's because you value the money more than the stock.  If it goes up tomorrow, that's the buyer's good luck.  If it goes down, the buyer's bad luck.  But it shouldn't matter to you.  You wanted money for something.  You received the money.   The increase in the stock market overall is an increase in value.  It is completely unrelated to trading losses.  Over time, trading gains outweigh trading losses for investors as a group.  Individual investors may depart from that, but the overall gain is added value.   If the only way to make gains in the stock market was for someone else to take a loss, then the stock market wouldn't be able to go up.  To view it as a zero sum game, we have to ignore the stocks themselves.  Then each transaction is a payment (loss) for one party and a receipt (gain) for the other.  But the stocks themselves do have value other than what we pay for them.  The net present value of of future payments (dividends, buyouts, etc.) has an intrinsic worth.  It's a risky worth.  Some stocks will turn out to be worthless, but on average the gains outweigh the losses. 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. I'm trying to think it out, but I feel like it would be hard to justify using potential profit sources as material for dividends. Especially your example of wine. Wouldn't it be counterintuitive to take a hit to sales, while still having the cost of production? "The only general rule is ""If you would buy the stock at its current price, hold and possibly buy. If you wouldn't, sell and buy something you believe in more strongly."" Note that this rule applies no matter what the stock is doing. And that it leaves out the hard work of evaluating the stock and making those decisions. If you don't know how to do that evaluation to your own satisfaction, you probably shouldn't be buying individual stocks. Which is why I stick with index funds." Used in our day to day activities is going out the house and get something more important that our family desires. But since the economy is not achieving a lot today, thinking about the top dividend stocks is essential. One component that ought to be looked at is the charge.   If you're accustomed with buying what you see without even going through the package price, you must modify the way you live your life. Persistence is very necessary for you to be able to find the top dividend stocks. When possible, you should get a less costly alternative on the costly items you utilized to purchase. Be persistent and also save money!