Does Apple stock ever split?

[sadcaper]

I would like to buy some Apple stock and stupidly let the iPhone phase pass without buying in. I'm wondering since the stock is so high, does anyone expect it to split? Not sure what Apple's philosophy is on this, just thought I'd ask.

 

[R.Youden]

I am not a stocks and shares bloke but I think this happened a few years ago. In the middle of the iPod boom.

 

[dejo]

AAPL has had splits in June '87, June '00, and February '05. But based on recent comments by Steve Jobs or Peter Oppenheimer (Apple CFO), I can't recall exactly, they may just take the Google route and not split anymore.

 

[c.greene914]

AAPL has had splits in June '87, June '00, and February '05. But based on recent comments by Steve Jobs or Peter Oppenheimer (Apple CFO), I can't recall exactly, they may just take the Google route and not split anymore.

This is correct. They are choosing not to split anymore as this dilutes the market share. It is better for shareholders for the price to continue rising.

 

[WildCowboy]

Here we go again with the split discussion.

In this day and age of online, low-fee brokers and odd lots, splitting is almost completely irrelevant. Don't let a split or lack of a split determine whether you buy a stock.

 

[rdowns]

Why would a split of the stock effect whether or not you buy?

Would you rather own 10 shares worth $150 a share or 20 shares worth $75 each?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Here we go again with the split discussion.

Let's split the difference and not discuss it again. 😉

 

[Abstract]

But even a 2:1 stock split is never exactly half, is it?


I mean: 10 shares worth $150 may split into 20 shares worth $76.50, simply because price jumps up a bit.

 

[WildCowboy]

But even a 2:1 stock split is never exactly half, is it?

I mean: 10 shares worth $150 may split into 20 shares worth $76.50, simply because price jumps up a bit.

A 2:1 stock split is always exactly half.

If the price jumps from $75 to $76.50 after a split (which is a separate event from the split itself), all it means is that the stock would have gone from $150 to $153 if it hasn't split.

 

[Grimace]

This is correct. They are choosing not to split anymore as this dilutes the market share. It is better for shareholders for the price to continue rising.

It actually makes no difference. A split changes the number of shares on the market proportionally with the value each share has. After a 5-1 split, you still hold the same proportion of Apple's market value. 5 times as many shares, each one is worth 1/5 as much.

Splits are designed to give people the illusion of accessibility. A $50 share might entice people to buy in where $515 might be too much for someone who wants to own a few shares.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Splits made a difference in the "old days" (not really so long ago) when brokers charged higher commissions to sell "odd lots" of shares (less than 100 shares or fractions thereof). Now, it doesn't matter, and for the most part, neither do splits (ask Google or Berkshire-Hathaway). The exception may be for stocks that pay dividends, if the dividend is raised along with the spilt, which happens sometimes. Apple really should declare a dividend, btw. That would be much better news for investors than a split.