Sure, but that goes into book value, and investors hardly care about book value. Investors care about revenues and EPS growth. I'm not saying that building the data center is not a good investment for Apple, but that investors aren't going to get excited when they "find out" about it (if only because this has been known for something close to a year now). What will excite investors is Apple showing that whatever the data center does is something that drives profits. We don't even know what the data center is for yet.
I subsequently edited my original response. Investment is not accounted for in the income statement, but rather in cash flows and the balance sheet. However, I agree with you that Apple has not specifically announced what traffic it will handle through its data center, but in light of recent announcements it's logical to expect that iAd, iBooks and expanded iTunes with video streaming will be part of the picture. One more thing - wouldn't it blow the lid off things if Apple came out with its own search engine? Heartburn for Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.
This conclusion is incorrect, even by your own reasoning. The impact of "Aunt Millie" investors on the share price is substantially close to nil because "Aunt Millie" investors are an extremely small segment of the overall market. Anyone who believes that they getting more for their money buying twice the number of shares at half the price does not even qualify as an amateur investor, they are a witless investor.
Splits made sense when trading "odd lots" of shares (lots less than 100 or multiples of 100) was more costly. With the advent of electronic trading, this distinction has vanished, and so has the importance of stock splits. Even marginally informed investors know that they are meaningless.
How did that work? When you buy and sell stock it's a first-in, first-out calculation. So if you have been buying and selling AAPL after your original investment, you were actually selling the stock you originally bought at $4, not "newer" stock at a higher cost basis... unless I misunderstand your comment.
On target. Small odd-lot shareholders are a pain in the butt and costly expense for large public companies. The aggregate cost of printing and mailing required reports is exorbitant.
This conclusion is incorrect, even by your own reasoning. The impact of "Aunt Millie" investors on the share price is substantially close to nil because "Aunt Millie" investors are an extremely small segment of the overall market. Anyone who believes that they getting more for their money buying twice the number of shares at half the price does not even qualify as an amateur investor, they are a witless investor.
Retail investors still hold about 30% of AAPL. Stock splits often increase volume.
My accountant never informed me of this, however, it looks like it only works when the original order is placed (one must specify that the shares will be "tax lot shares") otherwise the FIFO, or first-in, first-out accounting method applies.
If Dr Milmoss knew about this way back at $4, then I salute him.
How did that work? When you buy and sell stock it's a first-in, first-out calculation. So if you have been buying and selling AAPL after your original investment, you were actually selling the stock you originally bought at $4, not "newer" stock at a higher cost basis... unless I misunderstand your comment.
At any rate, $4 was an amazing time to get in... congratulations!
You don't have to sell first in. You can sell any shares you bought at any time using the cost basis of the shares you are selling, or at least so I have been advised by my CPA. Most people probably do sell their oldest shares first, if only because they might not qualify for long term capital gains rates if they don't -- but if it's long term gains either way, it really doesn't matter. The IRS collects the tax eventually (unless you donate the shares to a charity).
EDIT: Should have read forward, question already answered.
But empirical evidence does not show a positive link between volume and price. The only impact of volume on price will be via lowering the cost of capital for firms, by lowering the transaction costs on stocks. But for stocks such as Apple, the volume is already so high that a split is unlikely to affect bid-ask spreads.
Studies do show a strong positive association between volume and volatility, though. The reason for that is unclear.
Retail investors still hold about 30% of AAPL. Stock splits often increase volume.
Of course splits increase volume, since they increase the float proportionally to the split. What's so good about volume anyway?
The problem I have with your argument is the apparent assumption that the 30% of AAPL which is held outside of institutions is owned in any significant fraction by "Aunt Millie" investors who don't know that 10*5=5*10.
Of course splits increase volume, since they increase the float proportionally to the split. What's so good about volume anyway?
The problem I have with your argument is the apparent assumption that the 30% of AAPL which is held outside of institutions is owned in any significant fraction by "Aunt Millie" investors who don't know that 10*5=5*10.
I'm not discounting the arithmetic ability of the "Aunt Millie" investors. Still, there is evidence that emotions sway some investors, probably even the folks who run some institutions. Not everything is traded by a computer algorithm.
Increased volumes will drive up awareness. Some institutional buyers and mutual funds are compelled to add more of a heavily traded stock.
If Buffett can split BRK-B, then Jobs can split AAPL.
My accountant never informed me of this, however, it looks like it only works when the original order is placed (one must specify that the shares will be "tax lot shares") otherwise the FIFO, or first-in, first-out accounting method applies.
If Dr Milmoss knew about this way back at $4, then I salute him.
As far as I know, you just have to inform your broker at the time of sale about the specific lot that you'd like to sell, and that's it. I am not sure of any other restriction.
The data should then get entered as 'SVP' data in your tax-related documents, and you can self-report.
As far as I know, you just have to inform your broker at the time of sale about the specific lot that you'd like to sell, and that's it. I am not sure of any other restriction.
The data should then get entered as 'SVP' data in your tax-related documents, and you can self-report.
Let's say you originally bought 1000 shares at $10 basis cost, then you later sold 200 shares at $220, and other amounts at other times, and all the while buying different amounts at different times. I mean, it would be a devil of a tracking problem, but it could be done.
Let's say you originally bought 1000 shares at $10 basis cost, then you later sold 200 shares at $220, and other amounts at other times, and all the while buying different amounts at different times. I mean, it would be a devil of a tracking problem, but it could be done.
Yes, I agree, esp. with shares purchased a while ago. But if you used a brokerage, they should have the info?
But with the electronic trading accounts now, it has become so much easier.
I'm not discounting the arithmetic ability of the "Aunt Millie" investors. Still, there is evidence that emotions sway some investors, probably even the folks who run some institutions. Not everything is traded by a computer algorithm.
Increased volumes will drive up awareness. Some institutional buyers and mutual funds are compelled to add more of a heavily traded stock.
If Buffett can split BRK-B, then Jobs can split AAPL.
BRK is not exactly a great example, since BRK-A is selling for over $120,000 a share now, and has never been split. Buffet created BRK-B for people who can't afford to buy one share of BRK-A.
If you want to get down to the fundamentals, the markets move entirely on emotions -- the classic greed-fear continuum. What this has to do specifically with splits though, I don't know. I suspect not very much, and not especially over the longer haul.
Yes, AAPL "could be" split. The question is why they should bother.
Yes, I agree, esp. with shares purchased a while ago. But if you used a brokerage, they should have the info?
But with the electronic trading accounts now, it has become so much easier.
I don't use a human, I just use the online trading with a major stockbroker. I place trades whenever I want, it's cheaper and I don't have to rely on a sometimes unreliable broker with my pitifully small trades which often get short shrift.
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
Yahoo finance allows you to track cost basis. But really, your online brokerage should do this too. They will have a history of all your trades.
BRK is not exactly a great example, since BRK-A is selling for over $120,000 a share now, and has never been split. Buffet created BRK-B for people who can't afford to buy one share of BRK-A.
If you want to get down to the fundamentals, the markets move entirely on emotions -- the classic greed-fear continuum. What this has to do specifically with splits though, I don't know. I suspect not very much, and not especially over the longer haul.
Yes, AAPL "could be" split. The question is why they should bother.
There were some studies done on stock split announcements and those did increase the prices, at least for the short term.
Concerning Berkshire Hathaway, yes, I realize that Buffett created BRK-B (1/30 the share value) as a way for more people to invest in the company. The 50-to-1 split of BRK-B (now trading around $80) was to allow shareholders of Burlington Northern to have a piece of the action as well, but had the additional aftereffect of getting Berkshire Hathaway on the S&P 500 and may pave the way for them getting on the Dow 30.
Regardless of the split situation, it is a good day for AAPL shareholders.
Yahoo finance allows you to track cost basis. But really, your online brokerage should do this too. They will have a history of all your trades.
I agree. For instance, I use Schwab's online services, and everything is fairly comprehensive and automatic. (Note: This is not meant to be an endorsement of Schwab).
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
My brokerage likewise reports cost basis in my monthly statements.
Quicken tracks this too, as well as ROI, dividend yield, etc.
Comments
Sure, but that goes into book value, and investors hardly care about book value. Investors care about revenues and EPS growth. I'm not saying that building the data center is not a good investment for Apple, but that investors aren't going to get excited when they "find out" about it (if only because this has been known for something close to a year now). What will excite investors is Apple showing that whatever the data center does is something that drives profits. We don't even know what the data center is for yet.
I subsequently edited my original response. Investment is not accounted for in the income statement, but rather in cash flows and the balance sheet. However, I agree with you that Apple has not specifically announced what traffic it will handle through its data center, but in light of recent announcements it's logical to expect that iAd, iBooks and expanded iTunes with video streaming will be part of the picture. One more thing - wouldn't it blow the lid off things if Apple came out with its own search engine? Heartburn for Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.
This conclusion is incorrect, even by your own reasoning. The impact of "Aunt Millie" investors on the share price is substantially close to nil because "Aunt Millie" investors are an extremely small segment of the overall market. Anyone who believes that they getting more for their money buying twice the number of shares at half the price does not even qualify as an amateur investor, they are a witless investor.
Splits made sense when trading "odd lots" of shares (lots less than 100 or multiples of 100) was more costly. With the advent of electronic trading, this distinction has vanished, and so has the importance of stock splits. Even marginally informed investors know that they are meaningless.
Required reading.
How did that work? When you buy and sell stock it's a first-in, first-out calculation. So if you have been buying and selling AAPL after your original investment, you were actually selling the stock you originally bought at $4, not "newer" stock at a higher cost basis... unless I misunderstand your comment.
Not necessarily true. You can also sell specific shares. See the description of 'versus purchase' here: https://scs.fidelity.com/webxpress/h...nition_v.shtml or google the phrase.
Required reading.
On target. Small odd-lot shareholders are a pain in the butt and costly expense for large public companies. The aggregate cost of printing and mailing required reports is exorbitant.
This conclusion is incorrect, even by your own reasoning. The impact of "Aunt Millie" investors on the share price is substantially close to nil because "Aunt Millie" investors are an extremely small segment of the overall market. Anyone who believes that they getting more for their money buying twice the number of shares at half the price does not even qualify as an amateur investor, they are a witless investor.
Retail investors still hold about 30% of AAPL. Stock splits often increase volume.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/113.asp
Not necessarily true. You can also sell specific shares. See the description of 'versus purchase' here: https://scs.fidelity.com/webxpress/h...nition_v.shtml or google the phrase.
My accountant never informed me of this, however, it looks like it only works when the original order is placed (one must specify that the shares will be "tax lot shares") otherwise the FIFO, or first-in, first-out accounting method applies.
If Dr Milmoss knew about this way back at $4, then I salute him.
How did that work? When you buy and sell stock it's a first-in, first-out calculation. So if you have been buying and selling AAPL after your original investment, you were actually selling the stock you originally bought at $4, not "newer" stock at a higher cost basis... unless I misunderstand your comment.
At any rate, $4 was an amazing time to get in... congratulations!
You don't have to sell first in. You can sell any shares you bought at any time using the cost basis of the shares you are selling, or at least so I have been advised by my CPA. Most people probably do sell their oldest shares first, if only because they might not qualify for long term capital gains rates if they don't -- but if it's long term gains either way, it really doesn't matter. The IRS collects the tax eventually (unless you donate the shares to a charity).
EDIT: Should have read forward, question already answered.
Retail investors still hold about 30% of AAPL. Stock splits often increase volume.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/113.asp
But empirical evidence does not show a positive link between volume and price. The only impact of volume on price will be via lowering the cost of capital for firms, by lowering the transaction costs on stocks. But for stocks such as Apple, the volume is already so high that a split is unlikely to affect bid-ask spreads.
Studies do show a strong positive association between volume and volatility, though. The reason for that is unclear.
Retail investors still hold about 30% of AAPL. Stock splits often increase volume.
Of course splits increase volume, since they increase the float proportionally to the split. What's so good about volume anyway?
The problem I have with your argument is the apparent assumption that the 30% of AAPL which is held outside of institutions is owned in any significant fraction by "Aunt Millie" investors who don't know that 10*5=5*10.
Of course splits increase volume, since they increase the float proportionally to the split. What's so good about volume anyway?
The problem I have with your argument is the apparent assumption that the 30% of AAPL which is held outside of institutions is owned in any significant fraction by "Aunt Millie" investors who don't know that 10*5=5*10.
I'm not discounting the arithmetic ability of the "Aunt Millie" investors. Still, there is evidence that emotions sway some investors, probably even the folks who run some institutions. Not everything is traded by a computer algorithm.
Increased volumes will drive up awareness. Some institutional buyers and mutual funds are compelled to add more of a heavily traded stock.
If Buffett can split BRK-B, then Jobs can split AAPL.
My accountant never informed me of this, however, it looks like it only works when the original order is placed (one must specify that the shares will be "tax lot shares") otherwise the FIFO, or first-in, first-out accounting method applies.
If Dr Milmoss knew about this way back at $4, then I salute him.
As far as I know, you just have to inform your broker at the time of sale about the specific lot that you'd like to sell, and that's it. I am not sure of any other restriction.
The data should then get entered as 'SVP' data in your tax-related documents, and you can self-report.
As far as I know, you just have to inform your broker at the time of sale about the specific lot that you'd like to sell, and that's it. I am not sure of any other restriction.
The data should then get entered as 'SVP' data in your tax-related documents, and you can self-report.
Let's say you originally bought 1000 shares at $10 basis cost, then you later sold 200 shares at $220, and other amounts at other times, and all the while buying different amounts at different times. I mean, it would be a devil of a tracking problem, but it could be done.
Let's say you originally bought 1000 shares at $10 basis cost, then you later sold 200 shares at $220, and other amounts at other times, and all the while buying different amounts at different times. I mean, it would be a devil of a tracking problem, but it could be done.
Yes, I agree, esp. with shares purchased a while ago. But if you used a brokerage, they should have the info?
But with the electronic trading accounts now, it has become so much easier.
I'm not discounting the arithmetic ability of the "Aunt Millie" investors. Still, there is evidence that emotions sway some investors, probably even the folks who run some institutions. Not everything is traded by a computer algorithm.
Increased volumes will drive up awareness. Some institutional buyers and mutual funds are compelled to add more of a heavily traded stock.
If Buffett can split BRK-B, then Jobs can split AAPL.
BRK is not exactly a great example, since BRK-A is selling for over $120,000 a share now, and has never been split. Buffet created BRK-B for people who can't afford to buy one share of BRK-A.
If you want to get down to the fundamentals, the markets move entirely on emotions -- the classic greed-fear continuum. What this has to do specifically with splits though, I don't know. I suspect not very much, and not especially over the longer haul.
Yes, AAPL "could be" split. The question is why they should bother.
If Buffett can split BRK-B, then Jobs can split AAPL.
That, I agree with! No harm done in splitting.
Heck, at the margin, it might even fool a couple of people.....
Yes, I agree, esp. with shares purchased a while ago. But if you used a brokerage, they should have the info?
But with the electronic trading accounts now, it has become so much easier.
I don't use a human, I just use the online trading with a major stockbroker. I place trades whenever I want, it's cheaper and I don't have to rely on a sometimes unreliable broker with my pitifully small trades which often get short shrift.
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
Yahoo finance allows you to track cost basis. But really, your online brokerage should do this too. They will have a history of all your trades.
BRK is not exactly a great example, since BRK-A is selling for over $120,000 a share now, and has never been split. Buffet created BRK-B for people who can't afford to buy one share of BRK-A.
If you want to get down to the fundamentals, the markets move entirely on emotions -- the classic greed-fear continuum. What this has to do specifically with splits though, I don't know. I suspect not very much, and not especially over the longer haul.
Yes, AAPL "could be" split. The question is why they should bother.
There were some studies done on stock split announcements and those did increase the prices, at least for the short term.
Concerning Berkshire Hathaway, yes, I realize that Buffett created BRK-B (1/30 the share value) as a way for more people to invest in the company. The 50-to-1 split of BRK-B (now trading around $80) was to allow shareholders of Burlington Northern to have a piece of the action as well, but had the additional aftereffect of getting Berkshire Hathaway on the S&P 500 and may pave the way for them getting on the Dow 30.
Regardless of the split situation, it is a good day for AAPL shareholders.
Yahoo finance allows you to track cost basis. But really, your online brokerage should do this too. They will have a history of all your trades.
I agree. For instance, I use Schwab's online services, and everything is fairly comprehensive and automatic. (Note: This is not meant to be an endorsement of Schwab).
Incidentally, those of you who do your own trading and have to keep track of all this information... do you know of a comprehensive Numbers template or Excel doc that is suited for this? Something you actually use would be more helpful than something you just Googled.
My brokerage likewise reports cost basis in my monthly statements.
Quicken tracks this too, as well as ROI, dividend yield, etc.