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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (104141)	6/30/2008 9:02:48 PM
From: chowder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206322

>>> in 1999 QCOM went up 26-fold-- <<< That was my point. Splits are great for growth stocks in times where the growth stocks are in a strong uptrend. Otherwise, they slow down price movement from a supply vs. demand scenario. If there are more shares available, it takes more demand to offset supply. Most people, not all, buy shares based on round numbers, 100, 500, 1000, 5000 etc. They don't normally buy shares based on a percentage of their portfolio. If you buy shares based on a percentage of your portfolio, say 10% for example, then the number of shares are irrelevant because you are investing a dollar amount. This is how I buy shares. I invest dollar amounts, even if it ends up buying odd lots. Most people will buy, for example, 500 share lots. 500 shares of X at 10.00, 500 shares of Y at $15.00, 500 shares of Z at $20.00 and then you are overweighted Z based on dollar investment and if you lose on Z you could offset gains from X and Y. That's why it's usually best to buy dollar amounts based on the amount of your portfolio you wish to risk on each trade. Since a lot of people buy based on share lots, it's the dilution, or extra shares available due to a split that slows down price movement, unless it is a growth stock in a growth stock environment. I could be wrong, but that's the way I recall having read the research. I wish I could remember where I read it. I would like to go back and confirm it.

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (104141)	6/30/2008 10:17:19 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206322

Splits may be totally irrelevant as regards the capital owned per shareholder after vs before the split. That is a different matter from the issue of whether stock splits affect the stock price more than the mathematical ratio involved, and if a speculator can anticipate and benefit from the stock split announcement and delivery. I operate from the position that yes, there is a pattern to stock splits that might be considered, namely: 1. The split is announced. This good news raises interest in the stock and moves the stock price higher. 2. The stock split occurs. 3. People decide to sell a partial position once they get the "additional" shares. The stock declines. To me, I note it as a pattern. Just my view. Regarding DELL which you mentioned. Last split in '99. Stock rising until actual split, declining soon thereafter. (Well, if I read the squiggles correctly) finance.yahoo.com Or COSWF which you've mentioned recently. A rise leading to a drop right after the split. finance.yahoo.com Perhaps jmo and there's nothing to this anecdotal stuff. Reinforces my view though of what I suspect I often see.