>>Skeeter, hate to throw a monkey wrench in your figures, but are you split-adjusting the trading volumes?<<
kp, the csco chart *is* (and i'm not talking clintonesque is!) split adjusted for both price and volume.
>>It seems kind of unbalanced to so severely underweight the prices from the early 90's when the total shares outstanding were less than today's average daily volume.<<
only b/c the buying near the top was unblanced compared to the buying near the low.
>>In CSCO's case that's wrong. If you bought 1 share in Nov 92, when CSCO was trading at what is now, after split adjustments, $1 per share, today you'd have 72 shares at that $1 cost basis. So if you later bought 100 shares right at the top (not quite $80, but I won't quibble), your breakeven point is really about $47.<<
as stated above, splits were taken into account. the $1 and $80 stands b/c it takes into account splits. of course, it is just an example to make a point and not meant to represent gospel truth.
kp, it might be hard to believe, but it is true. |
