Any thoughts on the subject?  With aapl over 200 now could be the time.  With subscription accounting going the way of the dodo bird and possibly a big move up in the stock a split would be a welcome move.

I believe the Jobster got a bad case of GOOGLITIS, seeing { insider renegade idea stealer } Eric Schmidt’s stock soaring up to 600+, and thinking that is a sign of elite status comensurate with the elite Apple image, I don’t look for that anytime soon. Adding to that suspicision, is the fact that AAPL is now held 71% by institutional owners, i.e., mutual and indexfunds and pension funds and they are not swayed by such things generally.

Hello. I for one would love that to happen, we would have more room to move up, because at the current level, 100% gain means + 200$. I know a 100% gain is a 100% gain but we would have more buyers, therefore, more moves up, if the stock was priced lower, IMHO. Why not a 4 to 1 split? 

AAPL is now held 71% by institutional owners, i.e., mutual and indexfunds and pension funds

Of the remaining 29%, I wonder how much of that is in IRAs or just held long term by individuals who have no thought of selling , even after $300 is breeched? For an individual looking ahead to IRA deposits this year, $300+ is a 50% gain from these levels. So just buy 5 or 10 shares. 50% works on any number.

Good Morning Boys and Girls

The sponge could not sleep this morning.  We have discussed this issue many times.

I think institutions day trade as well.  There are enough individual investors to drive the stock up higher and faster if the price was lower and they felt buying up more shares would make them richer.

Most people don’t as how much you have invested in aapl, but rather how many shares do you own.

My view is that if we split now we would hit $200 again in three months.  But instead we will have to wait two years.

I don’t expect a split anytime soon. In the current economy, both the big wigs at Apple and the stockholders will want to maintain stability in stock transactions. Keeping the stock value high restricts the stock entry fee to the high rollers that can make the sizable investment, and will not be easily swayed to sell based on market rumors and generalized trends.

I’m with Tan on this one.  I don’t see it.  Apple is a premium company with a stock price point to match.  I don’t think there’s much to be gained by it in any event.

And it might make SJ smile to see AAPL at $200+ and lowly MSFT at $30.  That is some kind of daily vindication on who the real talent was in launching the PC.

IMO, there’s a better chance of a split if GOOG splits.

Any person who ever bought stocks knows that the stock price isn’t a measure of ANYTHING. If you look at any one thing about a stock when investing, you look at least at P/E. A stock split does NOT change P/E. AAPL will grow in proportion with its revenue/profit growth (all other things being equal, such as economy, the rest of the financial markets, etc).

Doesn’t anyone here thing that Berkshire-Hathaway would grow faster if they were to split their stock 1:10,000? Apparently, the stock is growing just fine, even though it is almost $100,000 per share. Even class B (the non-voting stock) is over $3,000 today.

Stock splits are MEANINGLESS. There is absolutely no reason for it to grow faster if the price were $100, or $50, or $25 instead of $200.

runedge - 30 December 2009 01:18 PM

Any thoughts on the subject?  With aapl over 200 now could be the time.  With subscription accounting going the way of the dodo bird and possibly a big move up in the stock a split would be a welcome move.

Apple stated some time ago that it would like to keep its stock around $200ish.

vasic - 31 December 2009 12:21 PM

Any person who ever bought stocks knows that the stock price isn’t a measure of ANYTHING. If you look at any one thing about a stock when investing, you look at least at P/E. A stock split does NOT change P/E. AAPL will grow in proportion with its revenue/profit growth (all other things being equal, such as economy, the rest of the financial markets, etc).

Doesn’t anyone here thing that Berkshire-Hathaway would grow faster if they were to split their stock 1:10,000? Apparently, the stock is growing just fine, even though it is almost $100,000 per share. Even class B (the non-voting stock) is over $3,000 today.

Stock splits are MEANINGLESS. There is absolutely no reason for it to grow faster if the price were $100, or $50, or $25 instead of $200.

Having never bought stock, I can only say that the measurement of stock price changes is only relevant to each individual stockholder, which, as I would agree with you, is an amateurish way of approaching stock purchases if one only looks at these values.

Stock splits are a way to to get more people to invest in a company (basically, a way to accumulate more debt, as a company has to pay back other’s investments wether through dividends or by the selling of stock at the appreciated value). Of course, by splitting the stock you are lowering the entry fee into the company, which can increase stock price volatility as less experienced investors or those with less capital are more apt to sell more quickly at the first sign of trouble.

vasic - 31 December 2009 12:21 PM

Any person who ever bought stocks knows that the stock price isn’t a measure of ANYTHING. If you look at any one thing about a stock when investing, you look at least at P/E. A stock split does NOT change P/E. AAPL will grow in proportion with its revenue/profit growth (all other things being equal, such as economy, the rest of the financial markets, etc).

Doesn’t anyone here thing that Berkshire-Hathaway would grow faster if they were to split their stock 1:10,000? Apparently, the stock is growing just fine, even though it is almost $100,000 per share. Even class B (the non-voting stock) is over $3,000 today.

Stock splits are MEANINGLESS. There is absolutely no reason for it to grow faster if the price were $100, or $50, or $25 instead of $200.

You miss one important thing about splits.  The masses think it does make stocks cheaper and can cause a short term rise as a result.  Not everyone trades around PE’s by the way…

Re. the masses: So true, runedge… one of the challenges when maintaing a stock portfolio on your own.

runedge - 31 December 2009 01:03 PM

vasic - 31 December 2009 12:21 PM

Any person who ever bought stocks knows that the stock price isn’t a measure of ANYTHING. If you look at any one thing about a stock when investing, you look at least at P/E. A stock split does NOT change P/E. AAPL will grow in proportion with its revenue/profit growth (all other things being equal, such as economy, the rest of the financial markets, etc).

Doesn’t anyone here thing that Berkshire-Hathaway would grow faster if they were to split their stock 1:10,000? Apparently, the stock is growing just fine, even though it is almost $100,000 per share. Even class B (the non-voting stock) is over $3,000 today.

Stock splits are MEANINGLESS. There is absolutely no reason for it to grow faster if the price were $100, or $50, or $25 instead of $200.

You miss one important thing about splits.  The masses think it does make stocks cheaper and can cause a short term rise as a result.  Not everyone trades around PE’s by the way…

But those aren’t the big players that move a stock with the daily volume of AAPL.  And most online brokers don’t care if you buy 100 shares at a time so the price is meaningless. I bought as few as 15 shares when it was higher and then gradually bought more at a time on its way down in 2008. I wish I had bought even more in Oct 2008 (the last time I made a purchase of AAPL). I think the chances of a stock split are near zero for 2010 and I don’t think the stock will peform differently whether or not it splits.

Dave

Would I like it to split?  Yes!  Will it split?  No!

There is a psychological resistance to buying a stock at $200 or $600 versus buying it at $20 or $60.  Keeping the stock at $200 basically makes it scary for the small investor.  I suppose that reduces volatility, since those are the people most swayed by herd mentality.  We can see the results every time Jim Cramer hiccups about Apple.  If the stock were at $20 with 10 times the outstanding shares that effect would be many times worse.  Still, I am one who likes volatility.  You can’t make much money if the company doesn’t pay dividends and the price never moves.  Maybe instead of a split they’ll consider paying dividends someday.

Dividends? Likely not, as Apple loves to spend on R&D. I am assuming that Apple stockholders use the value as equity for other investments.

Eric Landstrom - 31 December 2009 12:46 PM

runedge - 30 December 2009 01:18 PM

Any thoughts on the subject?  With aapl over 200 now could be the time.  With subscription accounting going the way of the dodo bird and possibly a big move up in the stock a split would be a welcome move.

Apple stated some time ago that it would like to keep its stock around $200ish.

Eric, I believe you are right. With the amount of dilution this stock has seen the last couple of years, it does appear to be Apple’s desired stock price. Apple has 30 bil in cash and earlier this year had the opportunity to repurchase some of its outstanding shares to strengthen its stock price, did not happen. A stock split will not happen either @ 200.  I imagine it will not happen in the foreseeable future.