- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
XOM hit an all time high this morning, 12/26/13, at $100.23 (split adjusted)
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:49 am
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:49 am
This may be the Warren Buffett effect. Berkshire bought a little over 40 million shares earlier this year.
It's time for a 2 for 1 stock split!
It's time for a 2 for 1 stock split!
3
Posted on 12/26/13 at 10:11 am to LSURussian
My grandfather bought 2 shares right before he retired in 1968- that gave him 200 total shares. When he died in 2005, each of his 4 daughters inherited 1600 shares. My mom and I were just talking about her stock this past weekend, and if/when it would split. I'm IN!!!!
My mom and I were just talking about her stock this past weekend, and if/when it would split. I'm IN!!!! 
Posted on 12/26/13 at 10:14 am to LSUGUMBO
ive breen praying for a cvx split also.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 11:11 am to LSURussian
My biggest holding
Posted on 12/26/13 at 12:56 pm to tiger perry
what are the disadvantages/advantages of a stock split in regards to shareholders
Posted on 12/26/13 at 1:28 pm to jimbeam
A split helps keep the liquidity in the stock. The higher the price, the slower the stock will rise in price as investors get priced out. Then it makes it harder to sell the stock. So a split will give each investor 2 stock and half the price, and it helps keep the stock at an affordable price.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 1:32 pm to southernelite
quote:
A split helps keep the liquidity in the stock. The higher the price, the slower the stock will rise in price as investors get priced out. Then it makes it harder to sell the stock. So a split will give each investor 2 stock and half the price, and it helps keep the stock at an affordable price.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Who is getting priced out based on the value of one share unless it is Berkshire?
Posted on 12/26/13 at 1:36 pm to jimbeam
quote:
what are the disadvantages/advantages of a stock split in regards to shareholders
In the grand scheme of things nothing whatsoever. Splits keep stocks attractive to retail investors. A prime example of a stock that doesn't split is Berkshire Hathaway, which has a share value well north of $100K.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 1:56 pm to LSU0358
quote:
A prime example of a stock that doesn't split is Berkshire Hathaway, which has a share value well north of $100K.
Which is deliberate because he wanted an illiquid stock that only the most sophisticated of investors could purchase.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 1:57 pm to LSUtoOmaha
quote:
This makes absolutely no sense to me. Who is getting priced out based on the value of one share unless it is Berkshire?
Well, you're welcome to give your reason for a stock split.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 2:41 pm to LSURussian
I've got some too from a great aunt whose husband was a lawyer for ESSO before they became Exxon. Started with 600 ... it's split a few times!
Come on split! eta: and yes I understand if it splits I'll have the same amount of "money" ... but as the stock goes up after the split, my "money" goes up.
Come on split! eta: and yes I understand if it splits I'll have the same amount of "money" ... but as the stock goes up after the split, my "money" goes up.
This post was edited on 12/26/13 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:15 pm to southernelite
quote:
A split helps keep the liquidity in the stock. The higher the price, the slower the stock will rise in price as investors get priced out. Then it makes it harder to sell the stock. So a split will give each investor 2 stock and half the price, and it helps keep the stock at an affordable price.
No, people getting priced out of a $100 stock are literally mist in the ocean. Splits don't mean anything, but for some reason happen because companies believe there is some type of mental effect on people. I'm not sure if it works or not.
quote:
Which is deliberate because he wanted an illiquid stock that only the most sophisticated of investors could purchase.
Berkshire has B shares now that go for about $115. You have less voting rights, but who cares when you own .0000001% of the company anyway.
This post was edited on 12/26/13 at 9:17 pm
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:37 pm to Chris Farley
Well, splitting at $100 is rather unique. A lot of companies now don't split for whatever. Apple and Google are up there and they dont seem to be interesting in a split.
But the consensus behind a split is that it helps keep the stock attractive and liquid. Obviously at $100, its not too much of an issue, but approaching $1000/sh. you start getting less and less individual investors.
Yeah, you have less voting rights because Buffet made sure that no one was going to attempt a hostile takeover of his company. By setting the voting rights A shares at such a price, only the most sophisticated of investors could afford the stock and have influence in the company, thats what he wanted.
But the consensus behind a split is that it helps keep the stock attractive and liquid. Obviously at $100, its not too much of an issue, but approaching $1000/sh. you start getting less and less individual investors.
quote:
Berkshire has B shares now that go for about $115. You have less voting rights, but who cares when you own .0000001% of the company anyway.
Yeah, you have less voting rights because Buffet made sure that no one was going to attempt a hostile takeover of his company. By setting the voting rights A shares at such a price, only the most sophisticated of investors could afford the stock and have influence in the company, thats what he wanted.
This post was edited on 12/26/13 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:55 pm to southernelite
Eh, I think you're overestimating how much corporations care about individual investors. Even people that can buy 1 share of BRK.A are small fish in the grand scheme of
I'm confused by your argument here. If they can't afford A shares, how are they going to execute a hostile takeover? BRK is a $291 billion dollar corporation.
quote:
things.
[quote]Yeah, you have less voting rights because Buffet made sure that no one was going to attempt a hostile takeover of his company. By setting the voting rights A shares at such a price, only the most sophisticated of investors could afford the stock and have influence in the company, thats what he wanted.
I'm confused by your argument here. If they can't afford A shares, how are they going to execute a hostile takeover? BRK is a $291 billion dollar corporation.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 9:59 pm to Chris Farley
quote:
. If they can't afford A shares, how are they going to execute a hostile takeover?
Thats the point. They can't afford A shares so they can't acquire a large enough stake to have any influence whatsoever.
ETA: Also, I'm not saying they do or dont care, but that generally the consensus behind why a stock splits is the company thinks that keeping the stock in a certain range keeps it liquid and attractive. Why else would they split?
This post was edited on 12/26/13 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 12/26/13 at 10:06 pm to southernelite
quote:
A prime example of a stock that doesn't split is Berkshire Hathaway, which has a share value well north of $100K.
Which is deliberate because he wanted an illiquid stock that only the most sophisticated of investors could purchase.
LINK
Actually he was interested in investors that would hold the shares long term. Berkshire A shares ended the year at 20 bucks in 1967, and didn't break $100.00 until 1977, by comparison GE was $77.00 in 1973. Berkshire was pretty affordable for the average investor for the first decade.
Posted on 12/26/13 at 10:10 pm to EA6B
Wasn't his company pretty small at that point?
Also, he only bought Berkshire because of his ego. Hes said it was biggest investing mistake and that it cost him a lot of money, but he bought it because he had an axe to grind.
ETA: just looked, the company was failing at that point in time
Also, he only bought Berkshire because of his ego. Hes said it was biggest investing mistake and that it cost him a lot of money, but he bought it because he had an axe to grind.
ETA: just looked, the company was failing at that point in time
This post was edited on 12/26/13 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 12/27/13 at 11:48 am to EA6B
quote:
Actually he was interested in investors that would hold the shares long term.
Agreed. Having a stock value of over 100K nips a huge percentage of day traders in the bud.
Posted on 12/27/13 at 4:09 pm to LSU0358
quote:
Agreed. Having a stock value of over 100K nips a huge percentage of day traders in the bud.
From Wiki
"Berkshire Hathaway is notable in that it has never split its Class A shares, which not only contributed to their high per-share price but also significantly reduced the liquidity of the stock. This refusal to split the stock reflects the management's desire to attract long-term investors as opposed to short-term speculators."
Posted on 12/28/13 at 12:20 pm to EA6B
Xom has bought back over 200 billion dollars worth of stock in the past 10 years.... Why would they split? Do they need $$$$? Why would they be buying back stock if they planned to split? Explain this to me. I don't understand? Google is over $1,000/share.. They don't need the cash so they don't split. The less number of outstanding shares the better.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News