>>But if I understand your claim, you're saying the volumes listed on the chart are not the actual volumes traded that day but split-adjusted multiples of the actual volume.<<
yes, EXACTLY like the price data. csco NEVER traded near a dime, but the chart would indicate it did.
>>So in other words, on Jun 22, 1990, a split factor of 288:1 ago, CSCO did not, in fact, trade 2,800 1990 CSCO shares, but the equivalent of 2,800 of today's CSCO shares, which would be equal to (rounding off) ten 1990 CSCO shares. You can believe what you will, but I for one do not believe that to have been the case.<<
the chart i provided does not include that kind of resolution, therefore, i'm curious where you get the data.
remember, the "y" bracket is in units of 100,000 and all values must then be multiplies to 1000 to get the actual value.
taking 1/1000 of the 100,000 y mark would yield 100,000 shares traded on that day. 1/100 would yield 1 million shares traded. i can't resolve 1/25, let alone 1/100 and 1/000 on that y axis.
>>You can believe what you will, but I for one do not believe that to have been the case.<<
i don't believe it and i don't believe one has to to believe the volume is split adjusted. see explanation above.
variation and getting cut in half are two entirely different things.
ps - my guess is that you forgot to multiply your result by 1000. 1.9 million shares in 1990 doesn't seem out of wack in the slightest. |
