> Realistically though, recruiters are very good at figuring out what your ballpark is, based on your experience/qualifications/market-conditions, and will toss

> Realistically though, recruiters are very good at figuring out what your ballpark is, based on your experience/qualifications/market-conditions, and will toss out a number that's in the lower end of this ballpark, regardless of "their_top". Excuse my skepticism, but have you ever actually seen that happen? Your supposition reflects lack of understanding of how both external and internal recruiters work, and how they are incentivized. Their KPI is the number of candidates sourced by them who got hired. Which means they are two-way salespeople: they sell you on the position, and sell the employer on you. Their key goal in the early stages is to ensure you go through the process if you are qualified. They have zero incentive to lowball you. If anything they can and sometimes do get in trouble for inflating a candidates' comp expectations. So what you described, where a recruiter tries to preemptively negotiate you down, simply doesn't happen because it is counter-productive behavior for recruiter. He has absolutely no reason to lowball you, and every reason to make you aware of the highest pay you can possibly expect - because that will make you excited to come in for an interview. > At that point, not only do you not have any clue about their_top, but you've also allowed the negotiation to become anchored at a lowball number. This is negotiation between professional adults. The fact that the other party said a number doesn't obligate or "anchor" you in any way. You can simply say "sorry, but I'm looking for $X", or (more likely, if you have options) just assume the pay expectations aren't matching and walk away. The risk of the latter happening is why you'd never see this "recruiter lowball" in reality.