LOL, you don't give in easily do you. The facts seem to disagree with you.
What facts are those? All you've stated so far is that it makes the stock SEEM more affordable. Uh yeah, that's true. Apple is perfectly liquid, and no one who is buying $290 worth of apple shares is trading somewhere that requires 100 shares to be purchased at a time.
Stock splits don't do anything except make idiots happy and provide intelligent market participants a good opportunity to spot the dummies at the table.
They allow broader ownership of a stock - if every share cost $10,000 no one could buy it. But splitting a stock from $300 to $150 only means an average person will buy 10 instead of 5 shares. No difference.
Increasingly, even the notion of 'broad ownership' is suspect.
Often, more than 80% (or more) of stocks such as Apple are held by institutions.
Why is this so often stated as if it's clever to point out there share value remains the same? People ask this question because it is known that it boosts sales of stocks as they are perceived to be at a more affordable level AAPL has split in the past it will no doubt split again in the future.
Besides, don't forget options contracts which are traded at 100 options per contract. With a price of $90 for one Jan 2012 $210 call option, one option contract costs $9000. Of course, that same contract did cost around $4400 a year ago...
Increasingly, even the notion of 'broad ownership' is suspect.
Often, more than 80% (or more) of stocks such as Apple are held by institutions.
Exactly. It helps the guy who wants to invest $150 but not $300 in Apple shares. Does that person exist? I'm sure he does, somewhere. Does he matter? No. In fact he is clearly getting a bad deal, because the smaller amount you buy the larger the percentage of your purchase that goes to the broker instead of to your own future.
Oh well, it's an age old question - as you see from this thread, the people who believe the lie that splits matter have themselves convinced. Some people can't be educated.
What facts are those? All you've stated so far is that it makes the stock SEEM more affordable. Uh yeah, that's true. Apple is perfectly liquid, and no one who is buying $290 worth of apple shares is trading somewhere that requires 100 shares to be purchased at a time.
Stock splits don't do anything except make idiots happy and provide intelligent market participants a good opportunity to spot the dummies at the table.
It is my experience when people have to use pejoratives in any discussion to make their point they are already admitting subconsciously they are unsure of their position. That or they are simply really obnoxious people.
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
Team B understand that the causation of doing a split does have a reaction, hence the reason why it exists and why it?s utilized. Same goes for a reverse stock split.
Team A isn?t even considering cause and effect of the split, only the narrow view of the maths. I think Team A probably also falls under either Team Jacob and Team Edward.
Right now many don't have any Apple stock at $300.00, but those same people might buy 10 or so shares at $150.00. Even if it's an emotional thing, If you get 10 of something and spend $1500.00 or 5 at $300.0 ? I have more with the 10 shares
And just wait until those shares go to $300.00, then I've done real good.
Team B understand that the causation of doing a split does have a reaction....
We shouldn't be surprised if there is a small, albeit short-term, positive bump from a split. The reason is, there may be some slight signaling value: the market might infer that the management is signaling good tidings for the future (i.e., "lots of value-creating growth expected, leading to stock price gains, so why not attempt to send a signal about my insider's view of the future with a split"). In other words, the split itself is in anticipation of future stock gains. Te fact that the stock went up after the split had to do with the subsequent good performance, not the split itself.
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
I think Apple has done three 2-for-1 splits (i.e., "give me one share and I'll give you two in return") in the past.
So, in their absence, the stock would be trading for 300*2*2*2 = $2400 per share!
I think Apple has done three 2-for-1 splits (i.e., "give me one share and I'll give you two in return") in the past.
So, in their absence, the stock would be trading for 300*2*2*2 = $2400 per share!
Wow! Thanks for that ...
So, to be clear ... Team A would be just as happy with AAPL at that price ($2400 per share) and believe this would change absolutely nothing? That would be consistent with their belief splits are pointless after all.
The remarkable thing is that Apple has achieved this great success in the worst recession in 80 years. And they've achieved it in spite of the fact that they are frequently perceived as being overpriced. Even though I'm a fan of the company and have owned the stock on and off for years, even I thought that Apple was going to suffer big time during the recession.
We can all (except for the fanboys) claim that Apple makes a lot of bad decisions or has a bad attitude. But the fact is that they've been firing on all cylinders for a very long time in ways that virtually no other company has been able to achieve.
The question for the future is whether their arrogance will eventually harm them and whether they can stay far enough ahead of the pack as other companies have been able to copy/emulate their technology faster and faster. It makes me laugh when the UI on almost every other smartphone looks like a copy of the iPhone.
What is "arrogant" about demanding that everything in your ecosystem provide a similar level of excellence as your own products? If msft demanded that same level of quality experience from their "partners", Apple would still be a $4.00 stock.
The remarkable thing is that Apple has achieved this great success in the worst recession in 80 years. And they've achieved it in spite of the fact that they are frequently perceived as being overpriced. Even though I'm a fan of the company and have owned the stock on and off for years, even I thought that Apple was going to suffer big time during the recession.
We can all (except for the fanboys) claim that Apple makes a lot of bad decisions or has a bad attitude. But the fact is that they've been firing on all cylinders for a very long time in ways that virtually no other company has been able to achieve.
The question for the future is whether their arrogance will eventually harm them and whether they can stay far enough ahead of the pack as other companies have been able to copy/emulate their technology faster and faster. It makes me laugh when the UI on almost every other smartphone looks like a copy of the iPhone.
I agree with most of what you say except I'd switch the term arrogant for prideful. Apple are without doubt very, very careful what they allow into their eco system, demanding it conforms. This is in fact nothing new. I recall listening to Steve talking to us dealers back in the early days shortly after 1984 launch explaining how the Mac (and Lisa before that) had everything a programmer needed for an application built in ... he / she only had to deal with the specifics that made that application function ... to do its thing. The UI, the IO etc. was all taken care of. The point being once you knew how to use the Finder and one app you already knew how to use every other app (almost). This was truly revolutionary at the time. Today in addition to the comfort of the user, Apple's approach now extends to the protection of the user too.
It is my experience when people have to use pejoratives in any discussion to make their point they are already admitting subconsciously they are unsure of their position. That or they are simply really obnoxious people.
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
Google "what is Apple's Market Cap" and you will know the answer.
Comments
LOL, you don't give in easily do you. The facts seem to disagree with you.
What facts are those? All you've stated so far is that it makes the stock SEEM more affordable. Uh yeah, that's true. Apple is perfectly liquid, and no one who is buying $290 worth of apple shares is trading somewhere that requires 100 shares to be purchased at a time.
Stock splits don't do anything except make idiots happy and provide intelligent market participants a good opportunity to spot the dummies at the table.
Recent market research data also indicates that Apple continues to hit on all cylinders,
... But the fact is that they've been firing on all cylinders for a very long time
Interesting choice of words, considering that's exactly how SJ described the company... twelve years ago.
They allow broader ownership of a stock - if every share cost $10,000 no one could buy it. But splitting a stock from $300 to $150 only means an average person will buy 10 instead of 5 shares. No difference.
Increasingly, even the notion of 'broad ownership' is suspect.
Often, more than 80% (or more) of stocks such as Apple are held by institutions.
Why is this so often stated as if it's clever to point out there share value remains the same? People ask this question because it is known that it boosts sales of stocks as they are perceived to be at a more affordable level AAPL has split in the past it will no doubt split again in the future.
Besides, don't forget options contracts which are traded at 100 options per contract. With a price of $90 for one Jan 2012 $210 call option, one option contract costs $9000. Of course, that same contract did cost around $4400 a year ago...
From Investopedia web site.
You should not believe everything you read on the internet.
Increasingly, even the notion of 'broad ownership' is suspect.
Often, more than 80% (or more) of stocks such as Apple are held by institutions.
Exactly. It helps the guy who wants to invest $150 but not $300 in Apple shares. Does that person exist? I'm sure he does, somewhere. Does he matter? No. In fact he is clearly getting a bad deal, because the smaller amount you buy the larger the percentage of your purchase that goes to the broker instead of to your own future.
Oh well, it's an age old question - as you see from this thread, the people who believe the lie that splits matter have themselves convinced. Some people can't be educated.
It is amazing, a quick scan of many Apple blogs and all are having the exact same argument ...
Team A: It is mathematically the same ... no point ... doesn't change anything.
Team B: Many, many examples of actual stock splits showing huge gains in buying interest and positive results.
Team B is confusing cause and effect.
What facts are those? All you've stated so far is that it makes the stock SEEM more affordable. Uh yeah, that's true. Apple is perfectly liquid, and no one who is buying $290 worth of apple shares is trading somewhere that requires 100 shares to be purchased at a time.
Stock splits don't do anything except make idiots happy and provide intelligent market participants a good opportunity to spot the dummies at the table.
It is my experience when people have to use pejoratives in any discussion to make their point they are already admitting subconsciously they are unsure of their position. That or they are simply really obnoxious people.
Team B is confusing cause and effect.
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
Team B is confusing cause and effect.
Team B understand that the causation of doing a split does have a reaction, hence the reason why it exists and why it?s utilized. Same goes for a reverse stock split.
Team A isn?t even considering cause and effect of the split, only the narrow view of the maths. I think Team A probably also falls under either Team Jacob and Team Edward.
Right now many don't have any Apple stock at $300.00, but those same people might buy 10 or so shares at $150.00. Even if it's an emotional thing, If you get 10 of something and spend $1500.00 or 5 at $300.0 ? I have more with the 10 shares
And just wait until those shares go to $300.00, then I've done real good.
Skip
Team B understand that the causation of doing a split does have a reaction....
We shouldn't be surprised if there is a small, albeit short-term, positive bump from a split. The reason is, there may be some slight signaling value: the market might infer that the management is signaling good tidings for the future (i.e., "lots of value-creating growth expected, leading to stock price gains, so why not attempt to send a signal about my insider's view of the future with a split"). In other words, the split itself is in anticipation of future stock gains. Te fact that the stock went up after the split had to do with the subsequent good performance, not the split itself.
That's what I meant by 'cause and effect.'
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
I think Apple has done three 2-for-1 splits (i.e., "give me one share and I'll give you two in return") in the past.
So, in their absence, the stock would be trading for 300*2*2*2 = $2400 per share!
I think Apple has done three 2-for-1 splits (i.e., "give me one share and I'll give you two in return") in the past.
So, in their absence, the stock would be trading for 300*2*2*2 = $2400 per share!
Wow! Thanks for that ...
So, to be clear ... Team A would be just as happy with AAPL at that price ($2400 per share) and believe this would change absolutely nothing? That would be consistent with their belief splits are pointless after all.
The remarkable thing is that Apple has achieved this great success in the worst recession in 80 years. And they've achieved it in spite of the fact that they are frequently perceived as being overpriced. Even though I'm a fan of the company and have owned the stock on and off for years, even I thought that Apple was going to suffer big time during the recession.
We can all (except for the fanboys) claim that Apple makes a lot of bad decisions or has a bad attitude. But the fact is that they've been firing on all cylinders for a very long time in ways that virtually no other company has been able to achieve.
The question for the future is whether their arrogance will eventually harm them and whether they can stay far enough ahead of the pack as other companies have been able to copy/emulate their technology faster and faster. It makes me laugh when the UI on almost every other smartphone looks like a copy of the iPhone.
What is "arrogant" about demanding that everything in your ecosystem provide a similar level of excellence as your own products? If msft demanded that same level of quality experience from their "partners", Apple would still be a $4.00 stock.
The remarkable thing is that Apple has achieved this great success in the worst recession in 80 years. And they've achieved it in spite of the fact that they are frequently perceived as being overpriced. Even though I'm a fan of the company and have owned the stock on and off for years, even I thought that Apple was going to suffer big time during the recession.
We can all (except for the fanboys) claim that Apple makes a lot of bad decisions or has a bad attitude. But the fact is that they've been firing on all cylinders for a very long time in ways that virtually no other company has been able to achieve.
The question for the future is whether their arrogance will eventually harm them and whether they can stay far enough ahead of the pack as other companies have been able to copy/emulate their technology faster and faster. It makes me laugh when the UI on almost every other smartphone looks like a copy of the iPhone.
I agree with most of what you say except I'd switch the term arrogant for prideful. Apple are without doubt very, very careful what they allow into their eco system, demanding it conforms. This is in fact nothing new. I recall listening to Steve talking to us dealers back in the early days shortly after 1984 launch explaining how the Mac (and Lisa before that) had everything a programmer needed for an application built in ... he / she only had to deal with the specifics that made that application function ... to do its thing. The UI, the IO etc. was all taken care of. The point being once you knew how to use the Finder and one app you already knew how to use every other app (almost). This was truly revolutionary at the time. Today in addition to the comfort of the user, Apple's approach now extends to the protection of the user too.
It is my experience when people have to use pejoratives in any discussion to make their point they are already admitting subconsciously they are unsure of their position. That or they are simply really obnoxious people.
Is it just me .... or is this just too funny?
LOL, ok, But I have to then wonder ... why did Apple split in the past? What would AAPL be today (arithmetically I mean) per share had it never split? Just curious and too lazy to work it out
Google "what is Apple's Market Cap" and you will know the answer.
Is it just me .... or is this just too funny?
Oh he'll say he didn't use an insult, he used a general term to describe a type of person