“If history is any guide, the time is approaching for a stock-split from Apple,” Carl Gutierrez reports for Forbes.
“On Friday, shares of the computer and technology products company rose 3.3%, or $5.21, to a record close of $161.45,” Gutierrez reports.
“More than being a record high, Friday’s close also brings with it questions of what Steve Jobs is thinking and whether or not a stock-split is in Apple’s near future. Looking in the company’s past, it’s had 2-for-1 splits in 1987, 2000 and 2005, each time when its shares were worth about $100,” Gutierrez reports.
MacDailyNews Note: Apple stock split history:
(Date Declared – Record or Split Date – Payable Date (date NASDAQ trading began on split-adjusted basis): Type)
Feb. 11, 2005 – Feb. 18, 2005 – Feb. 28, 2005: 2-for-1 Stock Split
Apr. 19, 2000 – May. 19, 2000 – Jun. 20, 2000: 2-for-1 Stock Split
Apr. 22, 1987 – May. 15, 1987 – Jun. 15, 1987: 2-for-1 Stock Split
source: Apple Inc.
Gutierrez continues, “The Cupertino, Calif.-based company obviously omitted a split when it crossed $100 in the spring, but that might be explained by a rapid ascent taking the company by surprise.”
Full load here.
This a meaningless piece of Columbus Day fluff from Forbes. Apple was too surprised to split at $100? Give us a break.
Of course, Apple could just as easily decide to split the stock as not, but, if anything, Apple lately seems to have adopted the approach of no stock splits and allowing the share price to move beyond historical ranges.
I don’t care about splits. How about some dividends. I’ve worked hard holding these shares!!
no split
let it rise!!!!!!!!!!!
DogGone
Not wishing to be churlish, but has it occurred to you that part of the story behind Apple’s valuation is the fact that they don’t pay dividends.
You get your benefit by having an investment that has doubled over the last twelve months: what you appear to be saying is “that’s all very well, but can I have some cherries on my cake?”.
As for you working hard to hold on to your shares, I’m not certain I get your point. Once you buy the shares, they’re bought – the only work you have to NOT do is pick up the phone to your broker and ask him to sell. In fact, in Apple’s case, the shares are doing all the work.
So, if I were in a position of responsibility at Apple, the answer would be: No, you can’t have a dividend.
But if it splits, you can buy more at a cheaper price. Also, after a split, a $3 increase would be a $6 increase now. After an annoucement for a split, the stock generally rises because people want to get in on the action. If you want to make serious cash, you want the stock to split.
I am with maniMac. That stock splits then I am buying more immediately.
i think a stock split is possible….once it reaches $500/share in 2 years hahahahahahah…until then, hop on the AAPL express train and enjoy the ride folks. i was just kidding abt the 500/shr but it is possible that AAPL-with strong earnings, raised expectations and newer products- will reach a good $250 by next year (obviously i dont know exactly when next year) hell it could even happen this year.
Let’s do a reverse split just to screw with people’s minds.
The stock will not be splitting. The “in thing” is not to split your stock. Let your high stock price be an indicator that you are achieiving growth. GOOG, MA, BIDU, AAPL… all of them are part of the club. MSFT… not — and never will be.
No reason to split, period. Buy fewer shares at non-split prices… same thing as buying more shares at split prices.
Why wait for a split to buy? And I’m not trying to be a smartass here either. What is the benefit of waiting?
Stock split has absolutely no effect on the stock’s rise (or fall). A $3 increase from $163 to $166 would be a $1.5 increase, from $81.5 to $83. The stock doesn’t suddenly become more attractive because one single share costs less than $100. If anything, it would have a somewhat detrimental effect. Expensive stock is not quite that affordable to small-time, amateur investor (or trader). Ordinary Joe Shmoe can easily buy $30 stock (such as, say, MSFT…). They sure cannot afford BRK.A (Berkshire-Hathaway, Warren Buffet’s company), which cost $121,000 per one single share. That’s why AAPL makes wild swings on market news, and BRK.A doesn’t. Small-time investors buy and sell on emotion (primarily hope and fear), whereas professionals (who can afford $121,000 per share) do it using analysis and research.
Steve Jobs recently said in an interview he has no intention of splitting AAPL. He’ll let it ride as high as it can go. Google has gone past $600. Apple should have no problem doing the same thing (surpassing MSFT market cap along the way…).
Forbes has become a purveyor of trash. Shame on it!
Just sit on what you got or buy more, and, if it splits, great…if it doesn’t…then no skin off anyone’s back. A Joe Smoe like me could afford
a few more, though.
I vote for a split. But something tells me that Apple really may just let it rise. I prefer a split.
MW: value
@MCCFR.
Dude, it was a joke.
“But if it splits, you can buy more at a cheaper price. Also, after a split, a $3 increase would be a $6 increase now. After an annoucement for a split, the stock generally rises because people want to get in on the action. If you want to make serious cash, you want the stock to split.”
What drivel! A stock split has absolutely no effect on the value of the Company. Shareholders don’t make money when the stock splits.
I agree with MDN and Macaday – Forbes, and Fortune – are usually wrong about business topics, have no insight to the real world, and produce puff pieces only to produce hits. No quality whatsoever.
In a similar vein, I continue to be amazed at the media’s attribution for Apple’s success as being “style”, “cool factor” and “niche markets” (all of which help, of course), with no mention of the REAL reason for Apple’s success: quality products that far surpass the competition (and at fair prices).
Once you experience the quality, there’s no turning back.
My AAPL iStock feels “snappier”!!
@Smoke
Preach it! Apple is cool and stylish, but it’s just good quality too. I absolutely resent the constant implication that Apple products ride behind some kind of facade and nothing else. The cool is backed up by the real.
My guess is AAPL is not going to issue a stock split anytime soon. AAPL is taking a page out of the playbook of their new best friend, GOOG.
A 500 (scratch that – 600) dollar stock sounds more impressive than a 50 dollar one.
My two cents worth.
Peace.
Steve’s too greedy. He’d rather halve it instead of split it.
I submitted the following to Forbes:
reinharden
#####
Apple announced the 2005 stock split on 02/11/2005 and the actual split was on 02/28/2005. Those closing prices were respectively $81.21 and $88.99 (on 02/25).
Apple announced the 1987 stock split on 04/22/1987 and the actual split was 06/16/1987. Those closing prices were respectively $74.25 and $78.50 (on 06/15).
I might be reading Yahoo’s historical prices wrong and I might be off by a day or two on the relevant dates; however, it’s clear that in 2 of the 3 splits Apple was *NOT* above $100 at the time of the split announcement nor the split itself. One would be hard pressed to argue that ~$75 or ~$80 is really “about $100”.
To go from this flawed premise to a rapid ascent taking the company by surprise is truly a reach. There’s simply no way that Apple and its management failed to realize that by announcing the addition of a $6 billion product line that it’d likely have a huge positive impact on the stock price.
All in all, this is fairly sloppy journalism.
DogGone and the rest of you “I’m buying when it splits” are idiots. Get educated about how the stock market works, please. Really, you don’t know what you’re talking about and that can only mean bad things for your “portfolio”. Get educated before it’s too late.
@MTS
You must be the “idiot” since you can’t read properly. Where the hell did I say I would buy when the stock splits? Get it right dude. Either that or stop trolling.
The only reason to split the stock is to make it seem easier to buy because of it’s lower apparent cost. Obviously, there is no advantage either way. If a company feels that their stock will trade better if split then they may go that route. Again this is purely a physiological effect and used only as a selling / marketing tool.
As someone pointed earlier, the trendy thing is to let your stock increase in price. The cool companies don’t need to prove that their stock is attractive, because they know it already is. Apple is one of those companies and given that on any day nearly 5% of the outstanding shares are traded, they really don’t need to attract buyers to their shares.
It will split at 180. Mark my word, or just bookmark it!
A split would be great for investor.
The average investor is like sheet, they will follow the herd.
A stock at $180 may seem to expensiver for an investor who likes the product and would like to own the stock, however a price of $90 or better yet $60 may seem feasible.
Ex. I want to buy 100 shares of Apple now=$18000
The stock splits 3 for 1= 100×60= $6000
Gradma and Granpa can buy the grandkid $100 shares for college.
More people buy the stock, prices go up, company has more capital to invest, better products, happier employees with stock options. Everyone wins
Split the stock, I say.