Or do nothing & let the market participants (buyers / sellers / advisors) decide what value they place on the shares
seems to have worked well in the past - why change a thing ? ;)
Printable View
Not sure it is important enough to me :):, but on face value I wonder whether the authors benefitted from the NZ Maths education which is now the worst any first world country can offer :p:
so - what happened with the other 46% of all companies?Quote:
According to the analyses, 54% of companies recorded an increment of trading
volume after the stock split regardless of length of the data frame
what's the difference between "increment in trading volume" which hit 54% of all companies and "trading volume significantly increased" which hit apparently 60% of all companies? Even if they use two different bars ... wouldn't it make sense if the higher bar ("significantly") is hit less often?Quote:
, and the trading volume increased significantly in 60% of companies.
And now its 65% and 62% - hmm ... Looking at the sample size though, I wonder whether all of this is statistically relevant anyway ...Quote:
From a total of 26 companies, 65% and 62%
of companies have increased their market price and number of trading respectively
But be that as it may ... I recon this is the same thing as any hype about ASX listings - if you want to believe in it as magic bullet, than it works - at least until your fire the rifle ;p - and hey - sometimes people would hit the target with or without magic ... and whatever it is it generates PR (i.e. short term hype).
On the other hand - if splitting the shares is such a safe method to rise the market cap ... why don't we have zillions of shares for any company? Just keep splitting the shares and the market cap just keeps rising. That's how everybody gets a bargain :);
BP ...maybe the author fits this (courtesy of BaaBaa last night)
There are two types of people in the world
1) Those that can extrapolate from incomplete information
Bp, ackowdge that was a small study but I think the study I referenced at #6087 provides compelling evidence. Two studies of 1000 companies. I think its a good idea but ultimately I am sure the Chairman will be far more interested in what Tim Glasson thinks :cool:
I do note however that no-one has referenced any actual studies confirming that a share split is a waste of time so in the absence of any decent sample size confirming its a waste of time I'm happy to accept the study I referenced at face value.
I suspect, (but have no studies to confirm this), that some retail investors won't buy a $7+ share because they think something under $2 gives them far more bang for their buck.
From beagle earlier -
Although stock splits have no affect on the intrinsic value of the stock, being basically cosmetic, many studies show that stock splits result in high performance. In two separate studies in1996 and in 2003, David Ikenberry, Chairman of the Finance Department at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, found price performance of split stocks outperformed the market by 8 percent during the year following the split and by 12 percent over the ensuing three years. He looked at over 1,000 stocks for each study, including 2-for-1, 3-for-1 and 4-for-1 stock splits".
I remember reading a similar paper which drew the same conclusion ....but also noted that those stocks that outperformed the market post-split had also outperformed the market pre-split ....also suggesting that the (out performing) price increases pre-split had prompted the stock split. Sort of saying the split didn’t really have much real impact at all
Whatever HLG closed at 770 today .....possibly 800 tomorrow
I’d prefer no share split only because it makes annual reports and past analysis just a bit more annoying. Not too fussed if other investors buy this or not tbh.
Beagle keeps on about he huge growth in Glassons AU and how this makes HLG a growth company
So had a look at Glassons AU sales over the years
Impressive stuff