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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (123911)	4/20/2001 2:16:38 PM
From: Kevin Podsiadlik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I have to admit failure at finding a "smoking gun" kind of proof of my claim, which would be a news article from before the last CSCO split quoting a volume level consistent with that currently reported on Yahoo! (for the simple reason that news stories don't tend to quote volume figures anymore). But if I understand your claim, you're saying the volumes listed on the chart are not the actual volumes traded that day but split-adjusted multiples of the actual volume. So in other words, on Jun 22, 1990, a split factor of 288:1 ago, CSCO did not, in fact, trade 2,800 1990 CSCO shares, but the equivalent of 2,800 of today's CSCO shares, which would be equal to (rounding off) ten 1990 CSCO shares. You can believe what you will, but I for one do not believe that to have been the case. chart.yahoo.com if your assertion was correct, volume was actually more than cut in half almost over night. this doesn't sound reasonable to me. I don't see anything particularly abnormal there. Trading volumes vary. Last month 14 out of 22 trading days in CSCO had volumes over 100 million; this month we have yet to have one. (There's a message in there about the true strength of this rally, but that's another topic.)