No Apple stock split...for now.

The Stock Split would allow many more people to become AAPL Shareholders. It would also take the joy out of Shorting this stock which is the favorite yo-yo of the Hedgefunds. I would love to have four shares at $50.50 per share for every one of my $202.00 shares.
http://www.prime-targeting.com/apple-of-our-eye/

May be a 10 for 1 split when it reaches $300 a share.

"they do not effect [sic] the worth of the company " LOL

"One interpretation is that a firm considers its stock too highly priced for the average consumer and decides to split."

Not to split hairs (so to speak), but share holders are investors, not consumers.

I don't believe that one would properly call a stock split "a zero sum game." In a zero sum game, the net wins of one player balances the net losses of the other players. In other words, one person wins in proportion to the losses of another. For example, chess is a zero sum game, since in any game, one player wins only when the other player loses. Similarly, in a game of poker the amount that the winner walks away with is equal to the losses of the other players.

The point you seem to be making is that the value of the stock held before the split is equal to the value held after the split. In this case, there really aren't any net wins/losses to balance each other out.

I thank you for your advice.

However, I spent years doing technical analysis of financial markets and ran a number of limited partnerships in the eighties.

I think that the psychology is a bit different. I think that Apple, as a brand with amazing loyalty, has a huge untapped market of little guys who want some stock. Of course 72% is owned by institutions but 28% ain't chopped liver.

Will this involve program trading. Yes, I think it will, but I'm in for the long hall and have made over 350% since I bought my first share.

And Apple declaring a dividend? Of course that was nonsense. I even said that it hadn't happened since 1995 and debunked it in my post.

David

David

CV is right. David seems to have forgotten the psychology at play when trading a lower priced stock.

I agree in total with CV!

It's also worth noting that Apple's pile of cash is already priced into the stock; if they paid out $30B in dividends, their market cap would drop (approximately) by that same $30B, to about $155B. That'd bring share price down by about $30/share. You could turn around and buy more shares with your dividend, but it would be post-tax money.

Technology writers shouldn't comment about financial matters, particularly the stock market.

First of all, there is a difference between a high-priced stock and a lower one post-split, but not on paper. The fact of the matter is that *humans* buy stocks and the less expensive one seems more like a bargain, especially to many retail investors (like "Aunt Millie").

Arguably, this wouldn't be the case with a stock like AAPL which is largely (72%) held by institutional investors and mutual funds, but it is still the case. The lower pricing results in more trade activity, which in turn fuels activity of automatic program trading (trading that mostly controlled by computer algorithms).

The most recent notable stock split that clearly showed that a lower stock price drives up trading is the 50-to-1 stock split of Class B shares of Berkshire Hathaway. With the additional volume, the Standard & Poors selected Berkshire Hathaway to be part of the S&P 500 index. That drove up additional volume, as S&P 500 index funds (and others) were compelled to acquire shares of BRK-B.

That's one example of how a stock split isn't just the same, even if you do the basic math on paper. There are far greater implications to a stock split than the number of shares in your account and what they are worth.

Apple really should split the stock, just to drive up volume.

As to the dividend rumor, that's complete nonsense. Apple senior management has made it clear that they like the flexibility of having a lot of that cash on hand.

As an AAPL shareholder, would I like a dividend payout? The casual outsider might say, "duh, take the dividend", but I've looked at my ROI over the past five years and I doubt that I could take the AAPL dividend and find an investment that matches that sort of return. I am convinced that Apple executives have an overall better idea of how that money could be reinvested in the company (acquisitions, R&D, additional staffing, etc.) so I am content to not receive a dividend.

As an aside, Warren Buffett is against paying dividends also.