>>yes, the 80% ownership by institutions, etc. should have no bearing >>unless there's something neither of us has considered. But that >>other 20% would double in terms of shares outstanding, freeing up >>greater possibilities for ownership by us lesser beings.
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here. If the stock splits why would only 20% double in terms of shares outstanding?
For a 2:1 split would everyone who held 1 stock not be having two stocks?
Now if I were an Institution holding ASND who is happy with the price and way things are going with the company, why would I want to have two times as many shares? In fact, it reduces my liquidity because when I want to sell them off, it is easier to sell X shares than 2X shares (factoring time and price drop that would ensue), in fact, by splitting, one may encourage me to sell part of my holding for a profit racked up so far in case I do not, in principal, hold more than a certain number of shares of a company.
Now one could argue that splitting the stock may lead to some rise in price, however that is only a one time effect because that would not strictly affect the rate of rise (which is significantly dependent on market capitalization than share price) and would leave much to be desired from a company that has to depend on a split for its price to rise (somewhat). I think splits are good for those companies that have grown significantly, yet not having institutional holding.
And finally, I repeat what I said earlier, a company would like its stock to be held by more institutions rather than individuals.
Other than sheer bullishness, what is your basis for saying that holding by institutions should not have a bearing on whether it is split or not? That is not to say the company will not split; but the rational for doing so is not clear to me (then again, ASND's share policies have not always appeared to be rational to me).
M. Carter |
