I'm not a fan of environmentalism or global warming alarmism, but in this case I fully agree with Tim Cook. That's a great reason for you to own the stock. But there are people who don't want to support the activism and he suggested they sell. If I was long AAPL (or if I held a position where I was responsible for shareholder wealth), I'd want those people to hold onto their shares.
Says who? The 7:1 stock split isn't meant to attract "irrational buyers." That's silly. See earlier discussion. A few people agreed that it would be irrational to buy thinking that a pie cut into 7 pieces is bigger than when uncut, but argued that there are irrational people out there, so why not get them to buy?
But let's say the investor who bought the 4 shares at $560 did so because he or she had $2,500 to invest. Because each share is $560, that investor can only buy 4 shares for $2,260, and that would leave a remainder of $260.But if each share cost $80, the investor can then buy 31 shares for $2,480 and have $20 left over.You see how the finer granularity can be more appealing? Sure. And I also see the point regarding someone who wants to donate/gift some shares instead of money but $570 is too high of minimum. And I also understand that someone who is looking to invest less than $570 in AAPL can't do it as easily when a single share is higher. They are all valid situations where a split would help. But together, I have to imagine that such scenarios are rare enough and the amounts involved compared to the overall trading volume are insignificant enough not to justify all the legal and other costs of a split. Also, there's the possibility that (as Buffet believes - I don't agree with him) that tiny investors aren't as desirable. |
