Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Stock down?

MacFan782040

MacFan782040

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Dec 1, 2003
1,073
811
It's at liek $44 compared to high 80's on friday.

Maybe a 2 for 1 split thing? I don't know much about the stock market haha... but it looks worse now.
 
MacFan782040 said:
It's at liek $44 compared to high 80's on friday.

Maybe a 2 for 1 split thing? I don't know much about the stock market haha... but it looks worse now.
Click to expand...


Yes it split. :eek:
 
MacFan782040 said:
It's at liek $44 compared to high 80's on friday.

Maybe a 2 for 1 split thing? I don't know much about the stock market haha... but it looks worse now.
Click to expand...

Apple announced a 2 for 1 split several weeks ago that would take effect today.

So, if you had one share worth $90, you now have two shares worth $45. :)
 
For Apple $45 is still a good price. With WWDC and Tiger coming, the price is bound to be on the way up again.
 
Oh sweet- so wait what are the advantages of having a split stock as compared to not?

And can it ever un-split?
 
MacFan782040 said:
Oh sweet- so wait what are the advantages of having a split stock as compared to not?

And can it ever un-split?
Click to expand...

No advantage really, it's just a psychological trick. "Ooh $45 is cheap! Let's buy some shares!" and behold as the shares artificially soar.
 
Yes it can "un split" there have been some that have done that since 9-11. Usually very beaten down stocks that don't want to be de-listed. Others here can best explain.

A split stock often goes up now that "percieved" cost of entry is less. The effect often belies logic, but is real none the less.
 
MacFan782040 said:
Oh sweet- so wait what are the advantages of having a split stock as compared to not?

And can it ever un-split?
Click to expand...

yep, it's just for the convenience...

check this out: a successful company stock that has never split... the price, changes and volumes are somewhat funny. :D

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=brka
 
Savage Henry said:
That is truly the funniest thing I've seen all day .... :D

I just love the days range between 90,200 and 90,500 .... Gawd bless'em for extremist trading.
Click to expand...

It's funnier when that's so little a % to even matter to investors.
 
wdlove said:
For Apple $45 is still a good price. With WWDC and Tiger coming, the price is bound to be on the way up again.
Click to expand...

Unless you have my luck. I could have bought Apple at $25 or so a year ago (or at what ever low point they had :) ) and i could be sitting on stock worth $5 a share. And the iPod would have been a has been in the MP3 market. :D
 
Just bought 200 shares this morning. :D

At the very least, I'm hoping for a "free iBook" kind of return. ;)
 
Raven VII said:
No advantage really, it's just a psychological trick. "Ooh $45 is cheap! Let's buy some shares!" and behold as the shares artificially soar.
Click to expand...

While psychology is an important factor, there's also the benefit in increased liquidity for said commodity. $40 a share is easier to afford than $80, so more people can get into the market. Liquidity is [nearly] always a good thing.

For whomever asked about "un-splitting", yes there is such a thing as a reverse stock split. It works just as you would think.
 
CorvusCamenarum said:
$40 a share is easier to afford than $80, so more people can get into the market.
Click to expand...
That only holds true if you're planning on buying one share. And nobody should be buying one share of a stock at that price if they seriously want a return on the investment (broker commission fees would eat into it too much).

In other words, no, affordability is not the issue. It's primarily psychology.
 
It is great for the people that bought the stock prior to the split. I bought 40 shares at $80, so now I have 80 shares and $45/share. So, now if the stock goes up $1, I make $80, rather than the $40 I was making before.
 
DavidLeblond said:
uh, my stock is now worth half but I still have the same amount of shares.

Sharebuilder better fix this. :mad:
Click to expand...
Hi,

I emailed Sharebuilder customer support earlier, when I noticed this in my account. They responded immediately, saying that they'll examine stockholders' accounts and, after they verify the purchase date of your stocks, they'll credit your account with the appropriate number of stocks by 3/02/05.

Only after realizing that I suppose the split only just took place last Friday did it occur to me that Sharebuilder is probably being inundated with similar-type inquiries, and they would've taken care of the problem shortly without me bothering them. :p :rolleyes:
 
stubeeef said:
Yes it can "un split" there have been some that have done that since 9-11. Usually very beaten down stocks that don't want to be de-listed. Others here can best explain.

A split stock often goes up now that "percieved" cost of entry is less. The effect often belies logic, but is real none the less.
Click to expand...

"logic" is in the mind of the investor. In some cases it is the mindset that certain types of stocks should never be above a certain price. Inviting others in to buy the stock at the "lower" value; but hopefully at more than you may have paid for. I know of a few holders of Wash Post stock that have been hoping for a split for some time. For they see the real value of the stock in the $60 to $70 range long term. Not the the $90 to $100 range it is in right now. Some are hoping for a split to be able to double their shares and sell at a $10 premium, others are hoping to see the same share levels as they are now.
 
therevolution said:
In other words, no, affordability is not the issue. It's primarily psychology.
Click to expand...
You're both right. :)

As an extreme example, Berkshire Hathaway has deliberately let the price per share soar in order to deter small-time investors. Pretty hard for the average investor to pony up money in $90,000 increments. In the opposite direction, if you're interested in smaller-money investors, a lower share price allows for easier dollar-cost averaging.

There is also definitely some psychology involved. A price over $100 seems expensive, and less than $10 - certainly less than $1 - seems cheap (or, put another way, of little value). That's why most stocks are in the $10-100 range, and companies split (or reverse split) to keep it there.

--D
 
It changes volatility. Traders love splits. Investors should hate them with a passion but they don't.

Stock prices are integer amounts. Even though you used to hear 23 1/8th or nowadays 23.13 per share that stocks have a limited range of trading values. The smaller the value of the stock the greater percentage change is obtained from a minimum change in price. A $10 stock goes up a penny that a one mil increase in value. a $100 stock goes up the same penny its a ten thousandth.

If you trigger a buy or a sell based on a 5% gain a $10 stock has to go through 50 different positions. Each one of those might have a sell order waiting to push the price down. The $100 stock has 500 positions waiting with sell orders.

Additionally large traders like to move big blocks of stock. Thousands of shares at a time. I doubt when Merrill or one of the big players buys a stock they do anything less than 10000. (with the possible exception of BH but noone ever sells that)

Funny story. A couple of years ago a holding company was formed to allow the average joe to earn a piece of Warren Buffets action. It was going to use its money to buy a block of BH shares and then sell pieces of each share. The Oracle of Omaha caught wind and introduced B shares at 1/100 the price of A shares and fixed the ratio. The stock shot through the roof.
 
Dave00 said:
As an extreme example, Berkshire Hathaway has deliberately let the price per share soar in order to deter small-time investors. Pretty hard for the average investor to pony up money in $90,000 increments. In the opposite direction, if you're interested in smaller-money investors, a lower share price allows for easier dollar-cost averaging.
Click to expand...

Actually it was more to try and help the small (at the time then) investors. he wanted to limit speculation and volatility in the stock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back