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: GVTucker who wrote (97356)	2/11/1999 4:19:00 PM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 176387

Thanks for the correction of BRK. The problem with statistics is that it is basically inferential, and demonstrating a correlation is frequently sufficient for otherwise intelligent people to jump to premature conclusions. There is an understandable, if naive, tendency to ascribe causality to correlated relationships. In extreme forms this gives rise to magic. Primitive peoples believed that you could make it rain my imitating the clap of thunder because rain is often associated with thunder. Slightly more sophisticated people believe you can make a stock rise by splitting it <G>. Sometimes these kinds of strained inferences take on really bizarre forms. For example, technicians point to a formation they call a "double bottom" as a bullish indicator. But if you think about it you quickly realize that a double bottom can only be recognized after the stock rebounds. If it doesn't rebound it would not look like a double bottom to a technician after the fact. TTFN, CTC

To: GVTucker who wrote (97356)	2/12/1999 2:17:00 AM
From: On the QT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Hi GVTucker, In fairness to Michael Sivy since he is not on this thread to defend himself I will play with no judgment his hand to a degree. GVTucker to Chuzz: "First of all, all of the split advocates can really only state one study that supports their contention that a split stock continues to perform well--a study by Ikenberry at Yale. And Ikenberry's study is flawed, IMO, because it doesn't adjust its database for a number of pertinent factors." According to Michael Sivy's Money Managers Wall Street statement: "Nevertheless several academic studies have shown that splitting a stock can improve its performance" He cites Ford Investor Services as the source of his "true fact statement" on page 264 when he says "Splitting a stock can boost its return by four to five percentage points over the following year" QT to GV: Silvy says several studies have shown that splitting a stock can improve its performance You say only one and its flawed. So it seems you and he would disagree on this. QT to GV: Do you know if Ford Investor Services is in anyway referring to Ikenberry at Yale? Does Ikenberry admit to a flawed study? What are these adjustments that Ikenberry should have made and did not? GVTucker to Chuzz: "There are far more studies that verify what is more logical--that a split is irrelevant to future performance. Even the current 'fad' of buying stocks on a split announcement has proven to be a very short lived effect, with no performance effect when more than a 1 day time horizon is measured". QT to GVTucker: What are the name of these studies and where can we view them? Your statement is a direct contradiction to Sivy's. Sivy's cites Ford Investor Services as the source of his "true fact statement" on page 264 when he says "Splitting a stock can boost its return by four to five percentage points over the following year" GVTucker to Chuzz: BTW, regarding this statement:<<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)>> This statement is really a little deceptive, because BRK should trade at a premium to the public companies it owns, Buffett or no Buffett, because BRK also owns a large number on non-publicly traded companies. When private market value of those companies is included, BRK trades about where it should trade. QT to GVTucker: I would not have thought of the response you gave to Chuzzlewit, I don't know very much about BRK. Apparently Chuzzwit accepts you correction of his statement so nothing more can be gained from discussing BRK in regard to the subject at hand. Thanks for joining our discussion. Understand I am not saying you are wrong in your statements, and Sivy is right in his, I am suggesting that more from you on this is needed if possible. Regards, QT