|
Post by Tetrachloride on Sept 19, 2012 8:15:37 GMT -8
Motley Fool brainstorms on reasons for the lack of stock split : linkA fourth reason is the most obvious. Don't fix what's not broken. Apple CFO has more on his plate than a mere split.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Sept 19, 2012 11:20:20 GMT -8
I can see the logic, 644 to 520 to 700 in 6 months is not volatile at all. I will beat the same old drum, AAPL has split before with obviously great results. Without the last split do people really think AAPL would be trading at $1400 today? I for one do not. Now on the other side, do I think a split announcement would drive share price up, you betcha, lets find out!
|
|
|
Post by dmiller on Sept 19, 2012 19:57:01 GMT -8
How about the last -two- splits? Would we be at $2800 today? (I certainly think not)
I would like one more split, please...:-)
|
|
|
Post by Tetrachloride on Sept 19, 2012 20:47:03 GMT -8
oooo, I forgot about that. Thanks, dmiller.
How about a 2-1 split, each year for the next 5 years.
|
|
|
Post by capablanca on Sept 20, 2012 20:41:36 GMT -8
Rather than conjecture, read the research. Stock spits do not result in increased valuation.
And with the advent of low commissions, odd lots are no longer an issue.
What is an issue is that the high per share price keeps AAPL out of the price weighed anachronism known as the Dow Jones Average. I believe that is a good thing. If one believes otherwise than one has a legitimate reason to favor a split.
But I repeat myself. Again.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Sept 20, 2012 21:12:48 GMT -8
All someone has to do is look at companies like MSFT and ORCL who have each split 8-9 times. CAT BIDU, the list goes on and on. Not afraid of being in the DOW, as a matter of fact I welcome it. Taking HP's seat at the table would be nice. AAPL has actually split 3 times. If AAPL had not split, where do you think AAPL would be priced at. I will say this. If it had never split the share count would be so low that many would not be able to buy.
|
|
bud777
fire starter
Posts: 1,352
|
Post by bud777 on Sept 21, 2012 15:55:18 GMT -8
If Apple split 10:1 to give a pps of 70, wouldn't that mean that the cost of trading options would increase 10 fold? I think my broker charges a base amount and then by the number of contracts. Would the increased cost reduce options trading and thus reduce volatility?
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Sept 21, 2012 16:37:32 GMT -8
Per contract costs would rise, yes. Effect on options markets - who knows. A split doesn't change value. You buy in cheaper - you need more shares/leverage to get the same effect. I have no idea if net options activity would go down or up.
|
|
|
Post by stkstalker on Sept 22, 2012 5:13:20 GMT -8
I guess I am pro split, but am fine if it does not happen. One thing tho, I hear a lot of talking heads on that stock network say AAPL too expensive cost-wise. If the cost of doing the split is not prohibitive, do it just to shut those guys up. And maybe we can get a few more retail investors into AAPL. Striving to exceed the needs of the future.
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Sept 22, 2012 6:24:52 GMT -8
If Apple split 10:1 to give a pps of 70, wouldn't that mean that the cost of trading options would increase 10 fold? I think my broker charges a base amount and then by the number of contracts. Would the increased cost reduce options trading and thus reduce volatility? I didn't think of this, good point.Trademonster is $0.50 per contract with a minimum of $12.50 for options and $15.00 for spreads. For me I have yet to have any single purchase of >30 contracts but a 10 to one split would easily put me above this. Right now I pay more due to the minimum but that would change immediately.
|
|
|
Post by traitorjoe on Sept 22, 2012 9:32:55 GMT -8
I absolutely believe split at 5 or 10 to 1 would increase PE valuation over longer term Many mom and pop retail investors won't/don't buy stocks at $700 let alone $1000
If we go to $100 on a 10/1 from $1000 - stock probably bumps 5% within a few months organically from that level.
Apple likes calendar consistency, last year they announced the divvy, not at early March SH meeting, but a few weeks later - I think they up and Divy and possible split same timing in 2013
Look for big run in stock again right after SH meeting - and if it happens, then something is in works - WS knew last year Re: div announce and went heavy in same time period
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Sept 22, 2012 14:31:33 GMT -8
I have long been pro-split. The fact is, investors retail or otherwise can't seem to grasp P/E's, which is why I consider them irrelevant for AAPL. Too many people just look at the absolute stock price and call it expensive.
I've never heard anyone who thinks splits do nothing be able to answer this question: Without the last two splits, would Apple currently be trading at $2800?
Of course not.
I'd love to see a 10-1. Going from 70-150 would be a lot easier than going from 700-1500 IMO.
|
|
|
Post by chasmac on Sept 22, 2012 15:27:57 GMT -8
CAT BIDU, the list goes on and on... I love that movie, Lee Marvin was awesome :-) Would like to know the true answer on the costs of trading options after a split. Think we would attract more retailers with a $70pps but we might also get more volatility (from new shareholders not used to the whipsaw that AAPL can be).
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Sept 22, 2012 15:40:41 GMT -8
We'll cross that bridge when we get there. I'm really starting to think it's a matter of when.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Sept 22, 2012 15:52:57 GMT -8
I have long been pro-split. The fact is, investors retail or otherwise can't seem to grasp P/E's, which is why I consider them irrelevant for AAPL. Too many people just look at the absolute stock price and call it expensive. I've never heard anyone who thinks splits do nothing be able to answer this question: Without the last two splits, would Apple currently be trading at $2800? Of course not. Hmmmmm, I recently posted this elsewhere, thief! ;D
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Sept 22, 2012 16:01:11 GMT -8
I have long been pro-split. The fact is, investors retail or otherwise can't seem to grasp P/E's, which is why I consider them irrelevant for AAPL. Too many people just look at the absolute stock price and call it expensive. I've never heard anyone who thinks splits do nothing be able to answer this question: Without the last two splits, would Apple currently be trading at $2800? Of course not. Hmmmmm, I recently posted this elsewhere, thief! ;D Yeah, go tell it to Judge Koh. I'd do an AFB search to show how far back I've advocated this, but they are dead to me.
|
|
|
Post by adamthompson32 on Sept 22, 2012 16:04:16 GMT -8
I have long been pro-split. The fact is, investors retail or otherwise can't seem to grasp P/E's, which is why I consider them irrelevant for AAPL. Too many people just look at the absolute stock price and call it expensive. I've never heard anyone who thinks splits do nothing be able to answer this question: Without the last two splits, would Apple currently be trading at $2800? Of course not. I'd love to see a 10-1. Going from 70-150 would be a lot easier than going from 700-1500 IMO. Uhhhh....yes, it would be $2,800. Splits are meaningless.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Sept 22, 2012 16:43:42 GMT -8
I have long been pro-split. The fact is, investors retail or otherwise can't seem to grasp P/E's, which is why I consider them irrelevant for AAPL. Too many people just look at the absolute stock price and call it expensive. I've never heard anyone who thinks splits do nothing be able to answer this question: Without the last two splits, would Apple currently be trading at $2800? Of course not. I'd love to see a 10-1. Going from 70-150 would be a lot easier than going from 700-1500 IMO. Uhhhh....yes, it would be $2,800. Splits are meaningless. LOL, if you say so Adam.
|
|
|
Post by adamthompson32 on Sept 22, 2012 17:53:01 GMT -8
Uhhhh....yes, it would be $2,800. Splits are meaningless. LOL, if you say so Adam. Do you also believe AAPL can't go up because the market cap is "too big"? You must because both theories employ the same flawed logic.
|
|
|
Post by stkstalker on Sept 22, 2012 18:14:07 GMT -8
LOL, if you say so Adam. Do you also believe AAPL can't go up because the market cap is "too big"? You must because both theories employ the same flawed logic. No, he just has to believe that others believe the faulty logic. Now ask yourself, does JD think there are fools in the world?
|
|
|
Post by lovemyipad on Sept 22, 2012 18:21:10 GMT -8
Stkstalker, LOL!!
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Sept 22, 2012 19:20:25 GMT -8
Uhhhh....yes, it would be $2,800. Splits are meaningless. Really, one of the smartest people in the history of the world (SJ) has split AAPL 3 times.
|
|
|
Post by adamthompson32 on Sept 22, 2012 19:32:12 GMT -8
Uhhhh....yes, it would be $2,800. Splits are meaningless. Really, one of the smartest people in the history of the world (SJ) has split AAPL 3 times. Point being? TC said on a call about a year ago that all their research shows splits are meaningless. But I disn't base my opinion just on what TC said. I read a bit and drew my own conclusion. Now back to the Giants clinching a playoff birth.
|
|
JDSoCal
Member
Aspiring oligarch
Posts: 4,182
|
Post by JDSoCal on Sept 22, 2012 19:36:40 GMT -8
LOL, if you say so Adam. Do you also believe AAPL can't go up because the market cap is "too big"? You must because both theories employ the same flawed logic. If the perception that Apple is too big to continue growing became mainstream, sure. And that has been parroted quite a bit lately, unfortunately. But the idea that a perceived stock price is "high" when it reaches $700, regardless of P/E, is quite widespread. Even a math prof friend of mine has said this (he said it at $125, $200, and $300). Talking heads say it all the time on the financial shows. The world at large simply does not look at P/E's when judging a stock price. Apple actually had three "meaningless" splits. And I think you would be very hard-pressed to find many investors who think AAPL would be happily trading at $5600 right now without them.
|
|
|
Post by kloot on Sept 22, 2012 19:56:03 GMT -8
Do you also believe AAPL can't go up because the market cap is "too big"? You must because both theories employ the same flawed logic. If the perception that Apple is too big to continue growing became mainstream, sure. And that has been parroted quite a bit lately, unfortunately. But the idea that a perceived stock price is "high" when it reaches $700, regardless of P/E, is quite widespread. Even a math prof friend of mine has said this (he said it at $125, $200, and $300). Talking heads say it all the time on the financial shows. The world at large simply does not look at P/E's when judging a stock price. Apple actually had three "meaningless" splits. And I think you would be very hard-pressed to find many investors who think AAPL would be happily trading at $5600 right now without them. +1 it's human nature. just like people who compare the nominal stock price between AAPL and GOOG. the market is not rational.
|
|
|
Post by mbeauch on Sept 22, 2012 20:12:03 GMT -8
+1 it's human nature. just like people who compare the nominal stock price between AAPL and GOOG. the market is not rational. You would like to think people would buy based on fundamentals. To be honest, I am guilty of investing in hot stocks going all the way back into the 1990's. I remember buying INTC and CSCO back then. They had great stories, were growing extremely fast and were splitting regularly. The fact is their p/e's were crazy high and when the music stopped it was chaos. Heck, I own CMG right now. That is my momo stock. Values and perceptions. It has always been viewed that a company that splits sees a lot of upside in their stock. GOOG may have the same price, they have far fewer shares outstanding. To the uninitiated, they don't realize the difference. ALSO, I have never read a story about GOOG being to expensive.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 21:38:57 GMT -8
I'm out of this conversation. You don't know anything about my motives, and I don't have the time or energy to explain them.
|
|
|
Post by adamthompson32 on Sept 22, 2012 22:02:21 GMT -8
I should also say that I am for a split because it will put to bed the ______ conversation about a split.
|
|
|
Post by stkstalker on Sept 22, 2012 22:37:18 GMT -8
There is a split thread in AAPL Fumdimentals. Just sayin'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2012 22:39:38 GMT -8
Honest question: What were the reasons given by Apple management for the previous 3 splits?
|
|