Investing in a growth stock periodically
I would encourage you to read The Warren Buffett Way.  Its a short read and available from most libraries as an audio book.  It should address most of the ignorance that your post displays.   Short term prices, offered in the market, do not necessarily reflect the future value of a company.  In the short term the market is a popularity contest, in the long run prices increases based on the performance of the company.  How much free cash flow (and related metrics) does the company generate.  You seem way overly concerned with short term price fluctuations and as such you are more speculating. Expecting a 10 bagger in 2-3 years is unrealistic.  Has it happened, sure, but it is a rare thing.  Most would be happy to have a 2 bagger in that time frame. If I was in your shoes I'd buy the stock, and watch it.  Provided management meet my expectations and made good business decisions I would hold it and add to my position as I was able and the market was willing to sell me the company at a good price.   It is good to look at index funds as a diversification.   Assuming everything goes perfectly, in 2-3 years, you would have an extra 1K dollars.  Big deal.  How much money could you earn during that time period?  Simply by working at a fairly humble job you should be able to earn between 60K and 90K during that time.  If you stuck 10% of that income into a savings account you would be far better off (6K to 9K) then if this stock actually does double.  Hopefully that gets you thinking. Staring out is about earning and saving/investing.  Start building funds that can compound.  Very early on, the rate of return (provided it is not negative) is very unimportant.  The key is to get money to compound!
"Different stocks balance dividend versus growth differently. Some have relatively flat value but pay a strong dividend -- utility stocks used to be examples of that model, and bonds are in some sense an extreme version of this. Some, especially startups, pay virtually no dividends and aim for growth in the value of the stock. And you can probably find a stock that hits any point between these. This is the ""growth versus income"" spectrum you may have heard mentioned. In the past, investors took more of their return on investment as dividends -- conceptually, a share of the company's net profits for the year reflecting the share's status as partial ownership. If you wanted to do so, you could use the dividend to purchase more shares (via a dividend reinvestment plan or not), but that was up to you. These days, with growth having been strongly hyped, many companies have shifted much more to the growth model and dividends are often relatively wimpy. Essentially, this assumes that everyone wants the money reinvested and will take their profit by having that increase the value of their shares. Of course that's partly because some percentage of stockholders have been demanding growth at all costs, not always realistically.  To address your specific case: No, you probably aren't buying Microsoft because you like its dividend rate; you're buying it in the hope it continues to grow in stock value. But the dividend is a bit of additional return on your investment. And with other companies the tradeoff will be different. That's one of the things, along with how much you believe in the company, that would affect your decision when buying shares in specific companies. (Personally I mostly ignore the whole issue, since I'm in index funds rather than individual stocks. Picking the fund sets my overall preference in terms of growth versus income; after that it's their problem to maintain that balance.)" "In theory, investing is not gambling because the expected outcome is not random; people are expecting positive returns, on average, with some relationship to risk undertaken and economic reality. (More risk = more returns.) Historically this is true on average, that assets have positive returns, and riskier assets have higher returns. Also it's true that stock market gains roughly track economic growth. Valuation (current price level relative to ""fundamentals"") matters - reversion to the mean does exist over a long enough time. Given a 7-10 year horizon, a lot of the variance in ending price level can be explained by valuation at the start of the period. On average over time, business profits have to vary around a curve that's related to the overall economy, and equity prices should reflect business profits. The shorter the horizon, the more random noise. Even 1 year is pretty short in this respect. Bubbles do exist, as do irrational panics, and milder forms of each. Investing is not like a coin flip because the current total number of heads and tails (current valuation) does affect the probability of future outcomes. That said, it's pretty hard to predict the timing, or the specific stocks that will do well, etc. Rebalancing gives you an objective, automated, unemotional way to take advantage of all the noise around the long-term trend. Rather than trying to use judgment to identify when to get in and out, with rebalancing (and dollar cost averaging) you guarantee getting in a bit more when things are lower, and getting out a bit more when things are higher. You can make money from prices bouncing around even if they end up going nowhere and even if you can't predict the bouncing. Here are a couple old posts from my blog that talk about this a little more:" "I think Fidelity has a very nice introduction to Growth vs Value investing that may give you the background you need.  People love to put stocks in categories however the distinction is more of a range and can change over time. JB King makes a good point that for most people the two stocks you mentioned would both be considered value right now as they are both stable companies with a significant dividend.  You are correct though Pfizer might be considered ""more growth."" A more drastic example would be the difference between Target and Amazon.  Both are retail companies that sell a wide variety of products.  Target is a value company: a established company with stable revenues that uses its income to give a fairly stable dividend.  Amazon is a growth company: that is reinvesting its revenues back into the corporation to grow itself as fast as possible.   The price of the Amazon stock reflects what people think will be future growth (future income) for the company.  Whereas Target's price appears to be based on the idea that future income will be similar to current income.  You can see why growth companies like Amazon might be more risky as that growth you paid a high price for may not be realized, but the payout may be much higher as well." "One of the best answers to this question that I've ever read is in a paper published by Robert Lucas in the Journal of Economic Perspectives. That journal is meant to a be a place for experts to write about their area of expertise (in economics) for a general but still technically-minded audience. They recently opened up the journal as free to the public, which is a fantastic resource -- you no longer need a subscription to JSTOR (or whatever) to read it.  You can read the abstract to the paper, and find a link to it, here. One of the things that I like a lot about this paper is that it strips out absolutely everything even slightly unnecessary to thinking about a macroeconomy, and just discusses what one can arrive at with a very very simple model. Of course, with great simplicity come sacrifice about details. However, it does a great job of answering your question, ""why do people care about growth?"" A quick note: the key to understanding the answer to your question is to think about things in terms of ""the long term""  -- not even looking forward to the future, because we'll be dead by then, but looking back to the past. The key to the importance of growth is that, for the last ~200 years, the US has, on average, had maybe 2-3% ""real growth"" per year (I'm pulling these numbers out of my head; I think much better numbers are in that paper somewhere). On average, over that period of time, this growth has meant that the quality of life that one has, if one lives in a country experiencing this growth, is enormous compared to countries that do not experience this average growth over that period.  Statistically speaking, growth is also somewhat auto-correlated. Roughly speaking, if it was low the last few periods, you can expect it to be low the next period. Same thing if it's high.   Then, the reason we care about growth right now: if you have too many periods of low growth, pretty soon the average ""over the long term"" growth will be pulled down -- and then quality of life can't be higher in the future (which quickly becomes someone's ""present""). The paper above makes this point with a very simple model. Of course, none of this touches on distributional issues, which are another issue entirely. With respect to, ""The economy needs to grow to just keep up with its debt repayments,"" I think the answer is along the lines of, ""sometimes countries get into debt expecting that growth will increase their resources in the future, and thus they can pay back their debt."" That strategy is, of course, the strategy that anyone borrowing (""taking out a loan"") should be employing -- you should expect that your future income will be enough to pay back your interest+principle on a loan you took. Otherwise you're irresponsible. At the aggregate level, production is the nation's ""income"" -- it is what you have, all that you have (as a nation) to pay back any debt you've incurred at the national level." "I assume by that you mean gradually buying the same mix of funds over time.  If that's the case, there is no rational reason to do this.   Dollar-cost averaging is an artifact of the way most people fund their 401(k).  I would not consider it a viable ""strategy"".  (Neither does Wikipedia)  Let's say you have $100,000 that you add $10,000 at a time.  When you add money, one of three things can happen: Since you can't predict the future, there's no mathematical justification for buying in segments.  There's just as much chance that your funds will be worth more or less, so on average it should make little to no difference.   In fact, given the time value of money there is a slight  advantage to investing it all now so you can capture any future returns.  You can always rebalance later to capture gains on some funds and purchase funds that are down to (hopefully) catch them on a rebound." Even straight index funds grow at about 6-7%. on average, or over long periods of time.  In short time periods (quarters, years), they can fluctuate anywhere from -10% to +20%.  Would you be happy if your bank account lost 10% of its value the week before you had to pay the bill for the repairs?   Is it appropriate to invest small amounts for short periods of time? In general, no.  Most investments are designed for long term appreciation.   Even sophisticated financial companies can't do any better than 1 or 2% (annualized) on short-term cash reserves. Where you can make a huge difference is on the cost side.  Bargain with suppliers, or wait for sales on retail items.  Both will occasionally forego their margin on certain items in order to try to secure future business, which can make a difference of 20% or more in the cost of repairs. I just read the article and I'm not sure if the calculation is flawed. When they look at the single stocks. Do they always reinvest the dividends to the same stock? That would be quite unusual behaviour I think.  An investor who uses the buy and hold strategy  might have a bunch of companies which won't exist anymore in 20 or 30 years e.g. coal plants.  While many stocks are a good investment now. Reinvesting all the dividends for decades is obviously a bad decision for a large portion of the stocks.  Maybe I misunderstood the article. But what do you guys think? A 15% discount is a 17.6% return. (100/85 = 1.176). For a holding period that's an average 15.5 days, a half month. It would be silly to compound this over a year as the numbers are limited.  The safest way to do this is to sell the day you are permitted. In effect, you are betting, 12 times a year, that the stock won't drop 15% in 3 days. You can pull data going back decades, or as long as your company has been public, and run a spreadsheet to see how many times, if at all, the stock has seen this kind of volatility over 3 day periods. Even for volatile stocks, a 15% move is pretty large, you're likely to find your stock doing this less than once per year. It's also safest to not accumulate too many shares of your company for multiple reasons, having to do with risk spreading, diversification, etc.  2 additional points -  the Brexit just caused the S&P to drop 4% over the last 3 days trading. This was a major world event, but, on average we are down 4%. One would have to be very unlucky to have their stock drop 15% over the specific 3 days we are discussing.  The dollars at risk are minimal. Say you make $120K/yr. $10K/month. 15% of this is $1500 and you are buying $1765 worth of stock. The gains, on average are expected to be $265/mo. Doesn't seem like too much, but it's $3180 over a years' time. $3180 in profit for a maximum $1500 at risk at any month's cycle.