>> If AAPL runs to $100 in short order, it has nothing to do with the split *per se*.
I would drop the "per-se". It has nothing to do with it, period.
Is there even one person on this thread who has argued that it is anything other than cutting the pie into more pieces or changing a 10 for ten ones? It is an absurd argument. Even 30 years ago it was; today, the only real impediment to the absurdity was the cost of broker's fees -- now, even THAT is gone.
It doesn't alter the fundamentals of the stock in any way, at all. I've never bought a stock in my life without first knowing the number of outstanding shares. It is the first thing I look at after the share price. Who doesn't do that?
Okay, there are "traders" who look to make money tiny amounts of money on in-out trades that don't amount to a hill of beans. There are "technical" traders, who are misled by the premise that everyone knows everything.
Substantial buyers and sellers, the ones who make the shares move, recognize a split doesn't mean a damned thing. They're looking at earnings.
This idea that a stock split is going add meaningful value to the share price is total nonsense. 30 days from now no one is going to say, "Why don't I buy some Apple because I can buy smaller shares for a proportionately smaller price?" |
