Optimize return of dividends based on payout per share
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. "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."
"The other two folks here are right with the math and such, so I'll just throw some intuition out there for you.  The basis for this valuation model is really just tacking the Gordon growth model (which is really just a form of valuing a perpetuity) onto a couple of finite discounted cash flows. So that ending part is the Gordon growth model *at the future point* discounted back to the present.  The Gordon growth model uses a ""next period"" dividend for the very simple reason that it's the next one you'd get if you bought the stock.  Is that explanation clear enough, or were some of these points not adequately explained in your class? I'll help a bit more, if I can." Slice and Dice would have the approach for dividing things up into 25% of large/small and growth/value that is one way to go. Bogleheads also have more than a few splits ranging from 2 funds to nearly 10 funds on high end. The ultimate reason to own stock is to receive cash or cash equivalents from the underlying security. You can argue that you make money when stock is valued higher by the market, but the valuation should (though clearly not necessarily is) be based on the expected payout of the underlying security. There are only three ways money can be returned to the shareholder: As you can see, if you don't ask for dividends, you are basically asking for one of the top two too occur - which happens in the future at the end of the company's life as an independent entity. If you think about the time value of money, money in the hand now as dividends can be worth more than the ultimate appreciation of liquidation or acquisition value. Add in uncertainty as a factor for ultimate value, and my feeling is that dividends are underpaid in today's markets. "(Value of shares+Dividends received)/(Initial investment) would be the typical formula though this is more of a percentage where 1 would indicate that you broke even, assuming no inflation to be factored. No, you don't have to estimate the share price based on revenues as I would question how well did anyone estimate what kind of revenues Facebook, Apple, or Google have had and will have. To estimate the value of shares, I'd likely consider what does my investment strategy use as metrics: Is it discounted cash flow, is it based on earnings, is it something else? There are many ways to determine what a stock ""should be worth"" that depending on what you want to believe there are more than a few ways one could go." Essentially, yes, Peter Lynch is talking about the PEG Ratio. The Price/Earnings to Growth (PEG) Ratio is where you take the p/e ratio and then divide that by the growth rate (which should include any dividends).  A lower number indicates that the stock is undervalued, and could be a good buy. Lynch's metric is the inverse of that: Growth rate divided by the p/e ratio.  It is the same idea, but in this case, a higher number indicates a good value for buying. In either case, the idea behind this ratio is that a fairly priced stock will have the p/e ratio equal the growth rate.  When your growth rate is larger than your p/e ratio, you are theoretically looking at an undervalued stock. DRiPs come to mind as something that may be worth examining. If you take the Microsoft example, consider what would happen if you bought additional shares each year by re-investing the dividends and the stock also went up over the years. A combination of capital appreciation in the share price plus the additional shares purchased over time can produce a good income stream over time. The key is to consider how long are you contributing, how much are you contributing and what end result are you expecting as some companies can have larger dividends if you look at REITs for example. 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? It looks like you need a lot more education on the subject. I suggest you pick up a book on investing and portfolio management to get a first idea. Dividend yields are currently way below 5% on blue chips. Unlike coupons from fixed income instruments (which, in the same risk category, pay a lot less), dividend yields are not guaranteed and neither is the invested principal amount.  In either case, your calculation is far away from reality.  Sure, there are investments (such as the mentioned direct investments in companies or housings in emerging economies) that can potentially earn you two digit percentage returns. Just remember: risk always goes both ways. A higher earning potential means higher loss potential. Also, a direct investment is a lot less liquid than an investment on a publicly quoted high turnover market place. If you suddenly need money, you really don't want to be pressed to sell real estate in an emerging market (keyword: bid ask spread). My advice: the money that you can set aside for the long term (10 years plus), invest it in stock ETFs, globally. Everything else should be invested in bond funds or even deposits, depending on when you will need the access. As others have pointed out, consider getting professional advice. If annualized rate of return is what you are looking for, using a tool would make it a lot easier.   In the post I've also explained how to use the spreadsheet.   Hope this helps. "You're talking about modern portfolio theory. The wiki article goes into the math. Here's the gist: Modern portfolio theory (MPT) is a theory of finance that attempts to maximize portfolio expected return for a given amount of portfolio risk, or equivalently minimize risk for a given level of expected return, by carefully choosing the proportions of various assets. At the most basic level, you either a) pick a level of risk (standard deviation of your whole portfolio) that you're ok with and find the maximum return you can achieve while not exceeding your risk level, or b) pick a level of expected return that you want and minimize risk (again, the standard deviation of your portfolio). You don't maximize both moments at once. The techniques behind actually solving them in all but the most trivial cases (portfolios of two or three assets are trivial cases) are basically quadratic programming because to be realistic, you might have a portfolio that a) doesn't allow short sales for all instruments, and/or b) has some securities that can't be held in fractional amounts (like ETF's or bonds). Then there isn't a closed form solution and you need computational techniques like mixed integer quadratic programming Plenty of firms and people use these techniques, even in their most basic form. Also your terms are a bit strange: It has correlation table p11, p12, ... pij, pnn for i and j running from 1 to n This is usually called the covariance matrix. I want to maximize 2 variables. Namely the expected return and the additive inverse of the standard deviation of the mixed investments. Like I said above you don't maximize two moments (return and inverse of risk). I realize that you're trying to minimize risk by maximizing ""negative risk"" so to speak but since risk and return are inherently a tradeoff you can't achieve the best of both worlds. Maybe I should point out that although the above sounds nice, and, theoretically, it's sound, as one of the comments points out, it's harder to apply in practice. For example it's easy to calculate a covariance matrix between the returns of two or more assets, but in the simplest case of modern portfolio theory, the assumption is that those covariances don't change over your time horizon. Also coming up with a realistic measure of your level of risk can be tricky. For example you may be ok with a standard deviation of 20% in the positive direction but only be ok with a standard deviation of 5% in the negative direction. Basically in your head, the distribution of returns you want probably has negative skewness:  because on the whole you want more positive returns than negative returns. Like I said this can get complicated because then you start minimizing other forms of risk like value at risk, for example, and then modern portfolio theory doesn't necessarily give you closed form solutions anymore. Any actively managed fund that applies this in practice (since obviously a completely passive fund will just replicate the index and not try to minimize risk or anything like that) will probably be using something like the above, or at least something that's more complicated than the basic undergrad portfolio optimization that I talked about above. We'll quickly get beyond what I know at this rate, so maybe I should stop there." "The basic theoretical reason for a company to return money to shareholders is that the company doesn't need the money for its own purposes (e.g. investment or working capital). So instead of the company just keeping it in the bank, it hands it back so that shareholders can do what they think fit, e.g. investing it elsewhere. In some cases, particularly ""private equity"" deals, you see companies actively borrowing money to payout to shareholders, on the grounds that they can do so cheaply enough that it will improve overall shareholder returns. The trade-off with this kind of ""leveraging up"" is that it usually makes the business more risky and every so often you see it go wrong, e.g. after an economic downturn. It may still be a rational thing to do, but I'd look at that kind of proposal very carefully. In this case I think things are quite different: the company has sold a valuable asset and has spare cash. It's already going to use some of the money to reduce debt so it doesn't seem like the company is becoming more risky. Overall if the management is recommending it, I would support it. As you say, the share consolidation seems like just a technical measure and you might as well also support that. I think they want to make their share price seem stable over time to people who are looking at it casually and won't be aware of the payout - otherwise it'd suddenly drop by 60p and might give the impression the company had some bad news. The plan is to essentially cancel one share worth ~960p for every payout they make on 16 shares - since 16x60p = 960p payout this should leave the share price broadly unchanged." You could take these definitions from MSCI as an example of how to proceed.  They calculate price indices (PR) and total return indices (including dividends).  For performance benchmarks the net total return (NR) indices are usually the most relevant. In your example the gross total return (TR) is 25%. From the MSCI Index Defintions page :- The MSCI Price Indexes measure the price performance of markets   without including dividends. On any given day, the price return of an   index captures the sum of its constituents’ free float-weighted market   capitalization returns. The MSCI Total Return Indexes measure the price performance of markets   with the income from constituent dividend payments. The MSCI Daily   Total Return (DTR) Methodology reinvests an index constituent’s   dividends at the close of trading on the day the security is quoted   ex-dividend (the ex-date). Two variants of MSCI Total Return Indices are calculated: With Gross Dividends: Gross total return indexes reinvest as much as possible of a company’s   dividend distributions. The reinvested amount is equal to the total   dividend amount distributed to persons residing in the country of the   dividend-paying company. Gross total return indexes do not, however,   include any tax credits. With Net Dividends: Net total return indexes reinvest dividends after the deduction of   withholding taxes, using (for international indexes) a tax rate   applicable to non-resident institutional investors who do not benefit   from double taxation treaties. Stock basically implies your ownership in the company. If you own 1% ownership in a company, the value of your stake becomes equal to 1% of the valuation of the entire company. Dividends are basically disbursal of company's profits to its shareholders. By holding stocks of a company, you become eligible to receiving dividends proportional to your ownership in the company. Dividends though are not guaranteed, as the company may incur losses or the management may decide to use the cash for future growth instead of disbursing it to the shareholders. For example, let's say a company called ABC Inc, is listed on NYSE and has a total of 1 million shares issued. Let's say if you purchase 100 stocks of ABC, your ownership in ABC will become Let's say that the share price at the time of purchase was $10 each. Total Investment = Stock Price * Number of Stocks Purchased = $10 * 100 = $1,000 Now, let's say that the company declares a dividend of $1 per share. Then,  Dividend Yield = Dividend/Stock Price = $1/$10 = 10% If one has to draw analogy with other banking products, one can think of stock and dividend as Fixed Deposits (analogous to stock) and the interest earned on the Fixed Deposit (analogous to dividend). Earnings per share are not directly correlated to share price. NV Energy, the company you cited as an example, is an electric utility. The growth patterns and characteristics of utilities are well-defined, so generally speaking the value of the stock is driven by the quality of the company's cash flow. A utility with a good history of dividend increases, a dividend that is appropriate given the company's fiscal condition, (ie. A dividend that is not more than 80% of earnings) and a good outlook will be priced competitively. For other types of companies cash flow or even profits do not matter -- the prospects of future earnings matter. If a growth stock (say Netflix as an example) misses its growth projections for a quarter, the stock value will be punished. Invest in kids, not pension - they never inflate. Without kids your retirement will be miserable anyway. And with them you'll be good. Personally, I do not believe that that our current savings will be worth it in 30 years in these times.