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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Big Bucks who wrote (10173)	6/6/2004 11:23:55 AM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Thank you. I wondered if I was too harsh in giving you an F in Investing 101, but this muddled, almost incoherent post is conclusive proof you should take the course over. At least, you remember "Supply and Demand" from Economics 101. We all know that a 2 for 1 stock split results in a stock price about 1/2 of the pre-split price. Yes, the number of shares outstanding is among the most important determinants of stock price. Your comment about "premium value" is contradicted by the fact that many stocks move higher on the announcement of a split. There is no relationship between the number of shares and "a mature stock and industry". Obviously, AMAT and the semi-equip industry did not get more mature when or because AMAT split its stock.

To: Big Bucks who wrote (10173)	6/6/2004 12:29:56 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25522

Re: If AMAT still had 800M shares outstanding the stock price would be $40+ right now based on PE, PS, growth, margins etc..... there would be a premium value assigned which is currently missing I think you should not confuse a personal theory with facts. And I assume that you are saying that GE, MSFT, CSCO, INTC, and EMC are acting against the best interests of shareholders when they split the stock and the number of outstanding shares rises above say 1 Billion? The fact that the number of shares doubles is absolutely meaningless....what matters is EPS and EPS alone. And since this is split in half once a stock splits, I really do not see any merit to your theory. Re: Less gold available, the value becomes worth more if demand warrants it..... This applies to oil, diamonds, etc., why do you fail to see this with stocks outstanding?Ever hear of the concept of SUPPLY AND DEMAND? Yes I did....notice how even with Warren's exemplary performance over many years, AMAT has outperformed them with many splits, while Berkshire has had zero splits. Why? It's the EPS and EPS growth which really matters. Not a number assigned to a piece of paper. Do the same comparison with MSFT, INTC, CSCO and the rest and you will see similar comparisons. Your theory holds no water, or the lines would crossover, or at the very least they would meet, with additional splits. This however is not the case. Berkshire has never increased the pool of their shares, and yet AMAT has outperformed them at nearly every timeframe. finance.yahoo.com Brian