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.

Pastimes : Bad investing information/advice on the net contest -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Other Analyst who wrote (193)	1/18/2000 6:26:00 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 214

TOA, You note: You noted that if the stock splits the small investor can buy more because of the "round lot" problem. As you know, but apparently some have ignored, there is no longer any relevance to the round lot notion. Trades now are priced per trade, regardless of the number of shares. It's $29 or $20 or whatever for any trade, whether it is 100 shares or 13 shares. So we cannot attribute any rational thinking to these investors' preference for splits. We should not attribute any rational thinking at all to stock splits. It's simply a matter of investor sentiment. It is a fact that most investors like stock splits and are convinced that in the long run, they will increase the value of their investment. Whether they in fact do increase the long term value of ones investment is difficult to argue, because most companies routinely execute them. One glaring opposing example is BRK.A. Would BRK.A be higher in value if they had practiced splits? Who knows. I for one, don't own any BRK.A. I can report that it traded today and closed at around the 52 week low, and is almost $30K per share off the 52 week high. A little too volatile for my tastes. Whether a stock split increases the long term value of an equity is certainly a point of disagreement, but count me in the camp that likes them. Have fun, Phil