Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (46605)	10/30/1999 10:56:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

Mucho Maas: Re: What splits mean to different folks. There is no question a split is meaningless in terms of value of the total $'s held. In theory the split is meaningless without doubt. But in the real world, a split has positives: 1. Many people fail to understand price. A lower price to these folks makes a stock "cheaper". That is nonsense, but reality in their minds. (And several studies have shown that lower priced stocks actually do increase more in percentage terms over time than higher priced stocks - so a correlation is there, is causation?) 2. Psychology. If a stock is splitting, it must be not only growing fast but sees strong growth continuing. Not a good measure, but it is amazing how many people believe this. 3. More shares available. This may be the closest to a real advantage that a split provides. More flexibility to use the stock on the part of the company itself. Marginal point, but some slight validity. In sum, those who view the stockmarket as governed by logic know that splits are meaningless. Those who view the stockmarket as emotionally driven recognize that splits matter. Since the stock market moves in the short run on emotion and in the long run (very very long run) on fundamentals, how to judge splits depends on where your primary interest is - short or long (very long). Chaz PS. Suggest to you that Voltaire's interest in splits fits his view of the market. Though he can speak better for himself - and no doubt will.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (46605)	10/30/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

>> A stock split means nothing--Warren Buffett (1 share of Berkshire Class A costs $63,900) WB is one of my favorites, but he belongs to a different era of investing, and not all of his utterances should be taken as gospel. Also it's worth noting that Mr. B. created brkb so that a broader base of ownership could be established. Don't you see the causal relationship between Q's volatility and its small float? uf

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (46605)	10/30/1999 11:18:00 AM
From: Voltaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

You just made my point, no Dell's split the last time did not make a bit of difference because it was not desired the way it was. Did the splits of Dell make a difference when it was desired, just ask the Dell Heads at the time. Did the splits of AOL make a difference, ask those people. It certainly did when I held it. Watch AOL this time, it will not have the impact it had in the past but it will help. Not impressed with Warren Buffett and his view of the New Paradigm or lack there of, said he would never invest in any Internet stock, geez! I had rather follow Lazlo. respectfully submitted Mucho, thanks, Voltaire

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (46605)	10/30/1999 1:57:00 PM
From: Jill	Respond to of 152472

Oh come on, MM. You know stock splits make a huge different. Psychology/perception is most of the market anyway. It's just like buying something for "$2.99". It works. After the split the stock "feels" cheaper. It didn't help DELL because their fundamentals were shifting at the time and the market punished them mightily for that and hasn't changed its mind yet. DELL was hoping the split would buoy them up, but that illustration isn't illustrative of the basic point. Jill