OTOH, splits usually happen after the price has run up, so many splits might be an indication that price has gone up steadily over the period. It wouldn't be the cause, but it might be a good indicator...
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
Ok - so why no Apple split? You think it need to go over $200 first?
Ok - so why no Apple split? You think it need to go over $200 first?
No clue.
As to "why no split," perhaps because it doesn't really matter much one way or another, and because Peter Oppenheimer worries more about getting financial policies right on the real things his company does, than the paper-shuffling (which many companies get caught up with).
Apple - well, SJ - also said that nobody reads anymore. Yet, there's an Apple book-reading device supposedly on its way.....
Well, he is the CEO and I will take his word regarding financial decisions. I use my MacBook Pro and iPhone to read articles and e-books that doesn't make it a book-reading device
As to "why no split," perhaps because it doesn't really matter much one way or another, and because Peter Oppenheimer worries more about getting financial policies right on the real things his company does, than the paper-shuffling (which many companies get caught up with).
The reason for no split is so that it makes it harder for small movers / day trading having a large effect on your stock price / company valuation.
"Make no mistake," he said, "Apple intends to keep gaining PC share."
Earth is round, water is wet... of course they INTEND to keep gaining PC market share, how about ANALYZING will they be able to do that. Seriously these "analysts" are just corporate lobbyist without any regards towards small investors.
The reason for no split is so that it makes it harder for small movers / day trading having a large effect on your stock price / company valuation.
I thought splits only 'helped' when a company declared dividends - usually per share. If you buy one, and then it splits in two and they declare dividends per share, you get double the dividends...except Apple doesn't declare dividends.
I thought splits only 'helped' when a company declared dividends - usually per share. If you buy one, and then it splits in two and they declare dividends per share, you get double the dividends...except Apple doesn't declare dividends.
Here's a tip for you.
Do NOT buy stocks. Ever. You're obviously too stupid to do so. Stick with mutual funds.
If the stock splits and then dividends are announced, the dividends will also be split. Basically, a board decides on dividends as a percentage of lower share value or percentage of profits or whatever. That dividend is divided by the number of open shares. If the number of shares doubles, the dividend per share is halved - so for any given dollar investment, you would receive the same dollars in dividends.
Do NOT buy stocks. Ever. You're obviously too stupid to do so. Stick with mutual funds.
If the stock splits and then dividends are announced, the dividends will also be split. Basically, a board decides on dividends as a percentage of lower share value or percentage of profits or whatever. That dividend is divided by the number of open shares. If the number of shares doubles, the dividend per share is halved - so for any given dollar investment, you would receive the same dollars in dividends.
Someone once said on CNBC (back when Apple was below $50 a share in 2005) that if Apple were to release div's on stock even at 1% you could expect the stock to triple overnight... I bought in at that time ($42.xx) with all our savings... Still waiting on the Divs... I'm not upset and I didn't file the class action BS that went out either. I vote with the board because it seems to work.
But that was when Eric Schmidt was on the board...
Splits are useful in many ways; as Techstud says, you can sell a little (but keep it a full lot), and it does open the opportunity to trade around a position a little better. No real material change, but lots of people like buying even lots and a lower price can simplify that. Big money buys in much larger blocks, so it doesn't really matter to the real market makers.
If you have a 100% gain, you are a fool to not try and opportunistically sell some and buy back as it retreats on 5-10% moves. Diversify a little; you never know when things will get really bad. It also helps you spot broader market patterns that can impact your main holdings.
(And can I put a Hoo Raaay out to Google going up $20 today and doing a lot of good on my $530 strike calls?! Still hoping the $620 strike calls will come into the money by January!)
Someone once said on CNBC (back when Apple was below $50 a share in 2005) that if Apple were to release div's on stock even at 1% you could expect the stock to triple overnight... I bought in at that time ($42.xx) with all our savings... Still waiting on the Divs... I'm not upset and I didn't file the class action BS that went out either. I vote with the board because it seems to work.
Well, look at what dividends (and share buybacks) did to MSFT. If Apple can manage continued 20-25% growth, I am happy to let them hold on to the cash in hopes of making good strategic moves.
All you should do with the dividends (at less than 4% or so) is reinvest them, so it doesn't really change the picture much.
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
Interesting. I don't really follow these matters (mutual funds for me, too many other things to think about) but I would have expected that there might be some slight longer term effect, psychological, based on the perception of value (i.e., people being used to it be "higher"), that might keep it slightly elevated relative to the market. But, maybe all the computerized trading wipes out these sorts of effects, except when the whole market takes leave of it's senses.
Well, look at what dividends (and share buybacks) did to MSFT. If Apple can manage continued 20-25% growth, I am happy to let them hold on to the cash in hopes of making good strategic moves.
All you should do with the dividends (at less than 4% or so) is reinvest them, so it doesn't really change the picture much.
I doubt if Apple will gain much market share in desktop or notebook sales. Those Windows PC manufacturers will just keep dumping cheaper and cheaper devices (crappy netbooks) on the market and Apple won't be able to do anything about that. Market share is a lost cause for Apple. They'll just have to settle on making profits and stretching out a longer lead in the smartphone market.
Apple may even have a hard time gaining smartphone market share, too. Android is going to run on every nickel and dime smartphone in every third-world country. Most manufacturers around the world don't really concern themselves about quality or ecosystems or customer support. They're only selling devices to people who want the least expensive device they can get their hands on. In places like India and Africa, nobody cares about brand names. They just buy whatever they can afford and the cheaper the better.
I looking forward to the Apple tablet possibly picking up slack from Apple's desktop sales. If just the educational sector would take some interest in it and start using it in schools, Apple could possibly get a lot of business.
Comments
OTOH, splits usually happen after the price has run up, so many splits might be an indication that price has gone up steadily over the period. It wouldn't be the cause, but it might be a good indicator...
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
Don't you have then more options available? Sell, etc?
Not really. If you mean call and put option prices, those too adjust.
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
Ok - so why no Apple split? You think it need to go over $200 first?
Not when you can borrow against your underlying asset value (e.g., buying stock on margin).
Because that strategy worked so well in the housing market...
Ok - so why no Apple split? You think it need to go over $200 first?
Apple said no more splits..
Because that strategy worked so well in the housing market...
Yeah, and therefore, houses are now only bought with 100% cash.
Ok - so why no Apple split? You think it need to go over $200 first?
No clue.
As to "why no split," perhaps because it doesn't really matter much one way or another, and because Peter Oppenheimer worries more about getting financial policies right on the real things his company does, than the paper-shuffling (which many companies get caught up with).
Apple said no more splits..
Apple - well, SJ - also said that nobody reads anymore. Yet, there's an Apple book-reading device supposedly on its way.....
Apple - well, SJ - also said that nobody reads anymore. Yet, there's an Apple book-reading device supposedly on its way.....
Well, he is the CEO and I will take his word regarding financial decisions. I use my MacBook Pro and iPhone to read articles and e-books that doesn't make it a book-reading device
No clue.
As to "why no split," perhaps because it doesn't really matter much one way or another, and because Peter Oppenheimer worries more about getting financial policies right on the real things his company does, than the paper-shuffling (which many companies get caught up with).
The reason for no split is so that it makes it harder for small movers / day trading having a large effect on your stock price / company valuation.
"Make no mistake," he said, "Apple intends to keep gaining PC share."
Earth is round, water is wet... of course they INTEND to keep gaining PC market share, how about ANALYZING will they be able to do that. Seriously these "analysts" are just corporate lobbyist without any regards towards small investors.
The reason for no split is so that it makes it harder for small movers / day trading having a large effect on your stock price / company valuation.
I thought splits only 'helped' when a company declared dividends - usually per share. If you buy one, and then it splits in two and they declare dividends per share, you get double the dividends...except Apple doesn't declare dividends.
I thought splits only 'helped' when a company declared dividends - usually per share. If you buy one, and then it splits in two and they declare dividends per share, you get double the dividends...except Apple doesn't declare dividends.
Here's a tip for you.
Do NOT buy stocks. Ever. You're obviously too stupid to do so. Stick with mutual funds.
If the stock splits and then dividends are announced, the dividends will also be split. Basically, a board decides on dividends as a percentage of lower share value or percentage of profits or whatever. That dividend is divided by the number of open shares. If the number of shares doubles, the dividend per share is halved - so for any given dollar investment, you would receive the same dollars in dividends.
http://db.xbench.com/merge.xhtml?doc1=396931
Shows a Mini with 6gb of ram.
Here's a tip for you.
Do NOT buy stocks. Ever. You're obviously too stupid to do so. Stick with mutual funds.
If the stock splits and then dividends are announced, the dividends will also be split. Basically, a board decides on dividends as a percentage of lower share value or percentage of profits or whatever. That dividend is divided by the number of open shares. If the number of shares doubles, the dividend per share is halved - so for any given dollar investment, you would receive the same dollars in dividends.
Someone once said on CNBC (back when Apple was below $50 a share in 2005) that if Apple were to release div's on stock even at 1% you could expect the stock to triple overnight... I bought in at that time ($42.xx) with all our savings... Still waiting on the Divs... I'm not upset and I didn't file the class action BS that went out either. I vote with the board because it seems to work.
Apple said no more splits..
But that was when Eric Schmidt was on the board...
Splits are useful in many ways; as Techstud says, you can sell a little (but keep it a full lot), and it does open the opportunity to trade around a position a little better. No real material change, but lots of people like buying even lots and a lower price can simplify that. Big money buys in much larger blocks, so it doesn't really matter to the real market makers.
If you have a 100% gain, you are a fool to not try and opportunistically sell some and buy back as it retreats on 5-10% moves. Diversify a little; you never know when things will get really bad. It also helps you spot broader market patterns that can impact your main holdings.
(And can I put a Hoo Raaay out to Google going up $20 today and doing a lot of good on my $530 strike calls?! Still hoping the $620 strike calls will come into the money by January!)
Someone once said on CNBC (back when Apple was below $50 a share in 2005) that if Apple were to release div's on stock even at 1% you could expect the stock to triple overnight... I bought in at that time ($42.xx) with all our savings... Still waiting on the Divs... I'm not upset and I didn't file the class action BS that went out either. I vote with the board because it seems to work.
Well, look at what dividends (and share buybacks) did to MSFT. If Apple can manage continued 20-25% growth, I am happy to let them hold on to the cash in hopes of making good strategic moves.
All you should do with the dividends (at less than 4% or so) is reinvest them, so it doesn't really change the picture much.
You are absolutely right. Studies do show that they signal slight cash flow optimism, resulting in a short-term (i.e., a few days around the announcement) excess return of 1% - 2%.
Interesting. I don't really follow these matters (mutual funds for me, too many other things to think about) but I would have expected that there might be some slight longer term effect, psychological, based on the perception of value (i.e., people being used to it be "higher"), that might keep it slightly elevated relative to the market. But, maybe all the computerized trading wipes out these sorts of effects, except when the whole market takes leave of it's senses.
Well, look at what dividends (and share buybacks) did to MSFT. If Apple can manage continued 20-25% growth, I am happy to let them hold on to the cash in hopes of making good strategic moves.
All you should do with the dividends (at less than 4% or so) is reinvest them, so it doesn't really change the picture much.
Absolutely! That's what I do.
Apple may even have a hard time gaining smartphone market share, too. Android is going to run on every nickel and dime smartphone in every third-world country. Most manufacturers around the world don't really concern themselves about quality or ecosystems or customer support. They're only selling devices to people who want the least expensive device they can get their hands on. In places like India and Africa, nobody cares about brand names. They just buy whatever they can afford and the cheaper the better.
I looking forward to the Apple tablet possibly picking up slack from Apple's desktop sales. If just the educational sector would take some interest in it and start using it in schools, Apple could possibly get a lot of business.