What prevents investors from buying high yield stocks and selling them as soon as their dividend is paid out?
"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." The market is not stupid. It realises that a company is worth less after paying out dividends than before paying them. (It's obvious, since that company has just given out part of its earnings.) So after a company pays out dividends, its stock price normally drops approximately by the amount paid. Therefore if you buy, get the dividend, and immediately sell, under normal conditions you won't make any profit. The ex-dividend date, prevents this, but people are still able to do this and this is an investment strategy. There are some illiquid and immature markets where prices don't adjust.  In the options market people are able to find mispriced deep in the money calls to take advantage of the ex-dividend date. It is called dividend capture using covered calls. The rest of the market knows when the dividends are paid out, and that will be reflected naturally in the share price. That's why there is no way to consistently beat the market. Because the market is other human beings, who's sum of knowledge is greater than any individual. Everything in the stock market boils down to this in one way or another. Although the market  discussion by other answers is correct, the  tax structure of many developed nations (I am familiar with Canada in particular) offers a preferred tax rate for dividend income compared to taxable gains. Consequently, if your portfolio is large enough to make transaction fees a very small percentage rate, this is a viable investment strategy.  However, as the preferred tax rate for dividends typically will catch up to that for capital gains at some cut-off point, there is a natural limit on how much income can be favourably obtained in this way.  If you believe your portfolio might be large enough to benefit from this investment strategy, talk to a qualified investment advisor, broker, or tax consultant for the specifics for your tax jurisdiction. I remember my Finance Professor at b-school answering this question:   The next moment the dividend is paid the total market cap is decreased by the amount paid   This makes sense as cash leaves company, the value of the company is decreased by exactly the same amount. To summarise: the moment you paid dividend, the value of the stock is decreased by the same amount. This investment strategy may have tax advantages. In some countries, income received from dividends is taxed as income, whereas profits on share trades are capital gains. If you have already exceeded your tax-free income limit for the year, but not your capital gains tax allowance, it may be preferable to make a dealing profit rather than an investment income. These arrangements are called a bed-and-breakfast.
"So, the term ""ready market"" simply means that a market exists in which there are legitimate buy/sell offers, meaning there are investors willing to own or trade in the security. A ""spot market"" means that the security/commodity is being delivered immediately, rather at some predetermined date in the future (hence the term ""futures market"").  So if you buy oil on the spot market, you'd better be prepared to take immediate delivery, where as when you buy a futures contract, the transaction doesn't happen until some later date.  The advantage for futures contract sellers is the ability to lock in the price of what they're selling as a hedge against the possibility of a price drop between now and when they can/will deliver the commodity.  In other words, a farmer can pre-sell his grain at a set price for some future delivery date so he can know what he's going to get regardless of the price of grain at the time he delivers it.  The downside to the farmer is that if grain prices rise higher than what he sold them for as futures contracts then he loses that additional money.  That's the advantage to the buyer, who expects the price to rise so he can resell what he bought from the farmer at a profit. When you trade on margin, you're basically borrowing the money to make a trade, whether you're trading long (buying) or short (selling) on a security.  It isn't uncommon for traders to pledge securities they already own as collateral for a margin account, and if they are unable to cover a margin call then those securities can be liquidated or confiscated to satisfy the debt.  There still may even be a balance due after such a liquidation if the pledged securities don't cover the margin call. Most of the time you pay a fee (or interest rate) on whatever you borrow on margin, just like taking out a bank loan, so if you're going to trade on margin, you have to include those costs in your calculations as to what you need to earn from your investment to make a profit. When I short trade, I'm selling something I don't own in the expectation I can buy it back later at a lower price and keep the difference.  For instance, if I think Apple shares are going to take a steep drop at some point soon, I can short them.  So imagine I short-sell 1000 shares of AAPL at the current price of $112.  That means my brokerage account is credited with the proceeds of the sale ($112,000), and I now owe my broker 1000 shares of AAPL stock.  If the stock drops to $100 and I ""cover my short"" (buy the shares back to repay the 1000 I borrowed) then I pay $100,000 for them and give them to my broker.  I keep the difference ($12,000) between what I sold them for and what I paid to buy them back, minus any brokerage fees and fees the broker may charge me for short-selling. In conclusion, a margin trade is using someone else's money to make a trade, whether it's to buy more or to sell short.  A short trade is selling shares I don't even own because I think I can make money in the process. I hope this helps." "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." 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. 1)  You ignore dividends. You can hold your 10 million shares and never sell them and still get cash to live on if the security pays dividends. McDonalds stock pays 3% in dividends (a year). If you owned 10 million shares of McDonalds you would get 75,000 every three months. I am sure you could live on 25,000 a month.  2)  Enron was an energy company. They sold energy and made a profit (or rather were supposed to). Enron didn't make their money by selling stock. McDonalds makes their money by selling hamburgers (and other food). The income of a company comes from their customers, not from selling stock.  3)  IF you sold all of your 10 million shares within a short time frame it, likely, would drive the price of the stock down. But you do not need a billion dollars to live on. If you sold 1000 shares each month you would have plenty for buying cars and pizza. Selling 1000 shares may drive the price of the stock down for a minute or two. But the rest of the transactions, for that security made the same day, would quickly obscure the effect you had on the stock.  4)  When you buy stock your money does not (usualy) go to the company. If I were to buy 100 shares of McDonalds, McDonalds would not get $11670.That money is (usually) paid to a 'Market Maker' who, in turn, will use the cash to buy MCD from other individual shareholders (presumably for less than 116.70 a share). 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. For all stocks, expected Dividends are a part of the price it is traded for - consider that originally, the whole idea of stocks was to participate in the earnings of the company = get dividends. The day the dividend is paid, that expectation is of course removed, and thereby the stock value reduced by just the amount of dividend paid. You will see that behavior for all stocks, everywhere. The dividend in your example is just uncommonly high relative to the stock price; but that is a company decision - they can decide whatever amount they want as a dividend. In other words, the day before dividend payments, investors value the stock at ~14 $, plus an expected dividend payment of 12 $, which adds to 26 $. The day after the dividend payment, investors still value the stock at ~14 $, plus no more dividend payment = 0 $. Nothing changed really in the valuation. "Invest in a high quality dividend paying group of stocks.  Look up ""stock  aristocrats"" to find longterm quality stocks that have regularly increased their dividends for over 20'years. 10'years is a safe period of time to invest in stocks.  If you had bought stocks at their hight in 2007 and kept them through the 40% decline thru 2008 and 2009 and held on to them for 10 years until 2017, you would have earned a 40 % increase from when you purchased them.  That is pretty much a worst case scenerio.  If you had invested in dividend paying stocks and had earned an additional 2.5% per year, you would have exceeded your 5% goal. The lifetime yearly return of the stock market is 10%.  Time is the only downside, but with ten years, you are almost certainly immune." "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."