A group of smart people who study companies and their money talk about three stocks that give you extra money every year because they are safe to buy when the market is not doing well. These smart people have been right a lot, so we can trust them. The three stocks are Conagra Brands (CAG), B&G Foods (BGS), and some other food company. They all give you more than 5% of your money back every year just for owning their shares. Read from source...

- The article does not provide any evidence or data to support the claim that these stocks are "risk off" or have high dividend yields. It simply assumes that investors want these types of stocks during turbulent times without explaining why or how they perform in such situations.
- The article also fails to mention any potential risks or drawbacks associated with these stocks, such as their financial health, valuation, competition, regulatory environment, etc. It seems to have a positive bias towards them and does not present a balanced view of the market.
- The article relies heavily on analyst ratings and opinions, which are subjective and may vary depending on the methodology, assumptions, and incentives of each analyst. It also does not disclose any conflicts of interest or past performance of these analysts, making it hard for readers to evaluate their credibility and reliability.
- The article uses vague and generic terms such as "unusual options activity", "free newsletter", and "most shorted" without defining them or providing any context or source for them. It also does not explain how these indicators are relevant or useful for investors looking for high-yielding stocks with low risk.
- The article ends with a promotional message for Benzinga's Analyst Stock Ratings page, which seems to be an attempt to drive traffic and revenue from readers who may not be interested in the topic or the quality of the content. It also does not mention any other sources or resources that readers can use to conduct their own research and analysis on these stocks.
- Overall, the article is poorly written, lacks substance, and fails to deliver value for its audience. It seems to be more focused on generating clicks and revenue than providing accurate and helpful information. I would not recommend reading this article or trusting the advice of Benzinga or its analysts.