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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: On the QT who wrote (97236)	2/11/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: Calvin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 176387

100 RT YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To: On the QT who wrote (97236)	2/11/1999 2:55:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 176387

Problems with the analysis: there is a logical fallacy in the argument. In logic, it is called begging the question (assuming the conclusion). I think we can agree with the following: Stocks that split are those that have gone up in price. Stocks that have gone up in price did so because the companies they represent have performed well. So the test ought not to be whether companies that split outperform the market. The test ought to be how those split stocks compare with their unsplit peers who have performed equally well in terms of earnings growth. Unfortunately, the vast bulk of stocks sell in a rather restricted trading range. How many publicly traded companies do you know of that do not split? The problem then is that we have no sample with which to test the hypothesis. I do believe that splits are a positive signal from management to the street. And management is probably in the best position to assess the futures of their respective companies. So I still believe that the split occurs as a result of the outlook. If a split is so important, could you explain why BRK.A which has never split, trades at a premium to the companies it owns (whose stock does split). Some would might that Warren Buffet is the reason. That could be, but it begs the question: if the thesis is true why should a holding company be valued higher than its components. TTFN, CTC