Finance Heads: When is Google gonna split?

jtothadub

jtothadub

280
10
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
right now, google is at 689.69, with no signs of slowing down. usually when stocks reach a certain point, they half the value, and doublethe amount of shares.

my question to all my finance heads is, what are the chances that google will make a move like that in the near future?
 
ive been wondering that for a long while now. it keeps getting higher.
i dont think they want to split. they want to keep it high...
 
Not likely in the near future, there is no real need for them to split

They are trying to do what Berkshire Hathaway has done
 
I hope never...

I invested about $20k into this company when it first became public...


chea'

Angel
 
^which is? alls i know is that Berkshire is expensive as hell and my parents have like 3 shares of it
laugh.gif
please explain
 
Originally Posted by funkdoctor73

I hope never...

I invested about $20k into this company when it first became public...


chea'

Angel
Click to expand...
son coppin the gt-r off good investment
pimp.gif
 
^^Warren Buffet is a smart%$+% man, i forget why he decided never to split his stocks.. from google

[size=-1][size=-1]"We often are asked why Berkshire does not split its stock. The assumption behind this question usually appears to be that a split would be a pro-shareholder action. We disagree. Let me tell you why.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]One of our goals is to have Berkshire Hathaway stock sell at a price rationally related to its intrinsic business value. (But note "rationally related", not "identical": if well-regarded companies are generally selling in the market at large discounts from value, Berkshire might well be priced similarly.) The key to a rational stock price is rational shareholders, both current and prospective.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]If the holders of a companies stock and/or the prospective buyers attracted to it are prone to make irrational or emotion- based decisions, some pretty silly stock prices are going to appear periodically. Manic-depressive personalities produce manic-depressive valuations. Such aberrations may help us in buying and selling the stocks of other companies. But we think it is in both your interest and ours to minimize their occurrence in the market for Berkshire.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]To obtain only high quality shareholders is no cinch. Mrs. Astor could select her 400, but anyone can buy any stock. Entering members of a shareholder "club" cannot be screened for intellectual capacity, emotional stability, moral sensitivity or acceptable dress. Shareholder eugenics, therefore, might appear to be a hopeless undertaking.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]In large part, however, we feel that high quality ownership can be attracted and maintained if we consistently communicate our business and ownership philosophy - along with no other conflicting messages - and then let self selection follow its course. For example, self selection will draw a far different crowd to a musical event advertised as an opera than one advertised as a rock concert even though anyone can buy a ticket to either.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]Through our policies and communications - our "advertisements" - we try to attract investors who will understand our operations, attitudes and expectations. (And, fully as important, we try to dissuade those who won't.) We want those who think of themselves as business owners and invest in companies with the intention of staying a long time. And, we want those who keep their eyes focused on business results, not market prices.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]Were we to split the stock or take other actions focusing on stock price rather than business value, we would attract an entering class of buyers inferior to the exiting class of sellers. At $1300, there are very few investors who can't afford a Berkshire share. Would a potential one-share purchaser be better off if we split 100 for 1 so he could buy 100 shares? Those who think so and who would buy the stock because of the split or in anticipation of one would definitely downgrade the quality of our present shareholder group. (Could we really improve our shareholder group by trading some of our present clear-thinking members for impressionable new ones who, preferring paper to value, feel wealthier with nine $10 bills than with one $100 bill?) People who buy for non-value reasons are likely to sell for non-value reasons. Their presence in the picture will accentuate erratic price swings unrelated to underlying business developments.[/size][/size]

[size=-1][size=-1]Splitting the stock would increase that cost (transfer costs), downgrade the quality of our shareholder population, and encourage a market price less consistently related to intrinsic business value. We see no offsetting advantages."[/size][/size]


3 shares is worth like $300,000


Angel
Click to expand...
 
there not splitting, there is no need for it

you have to realize that the majority of shareholders are large financial institutions

usually you split when you want to attract new investors (split cuases the price to fall - unless it's a reverse split), but as far as i know, they alreadyhave a solid foundation of sophisticated investors who understand the game

edit: you don't want that many shareholders at the same time -specifically the uneducated investors who only care to see a return - unlike sophisticatedinvestors who want to see a growth in the stock

shareholders are a tricky situation - since they CAN demand for certain things that can go against the philoshipy of google and their operations, but in thissituation, their ownership % would be so small that they don't ahve a big impact on what is said
 
Originally Posted by teddy jam

there not splitting, there is no need for it

you have to realize that the majority of shareholders are large financial institutions

usually you split when you want to attract new investors (split cuases the price to fall - unless it's a reverse split), but as far as i know, they already have a solid foundation of sophisticated investors who understand the game
Click to expand...

yep

like that artile posted said " Were we to split the stock or take other actions focusing on stock price rather thanbusiness value, we would attract an entering class of buyers inferior to the exiting class of sellers."

rich get richer baby
 
Thought you guys were talking about them going out of buisness or something.

Man I wish I invested with Google when they first came out.

Carry on.
 
nice info...

so can anyone forsee google hitting 1000 points whenever this new g-phone drops?

the reason i'm asking is because google is by no means a bargain stock, but it has outperformed most stocks in the Nasdaq this year. do you guys see verymuch growth potential, taking into consideration the steady increase in price?
 
Originally Posted by funkdoctor73

I hope never...

I invested about $20k into this company when it first became public...


chea'

Angel
Click to expand...

pimp.gif
well done funkdoctor...I wanted to invest in google when it firstbecame public too but I was 18 young and scared.
 
^ I apologize. I forgot everyone on NT knows someone who has 340,000 to spare when companies go public.
 
i try to look for stable, established companies that are going through some sort of impedance, like downsizing, etc...

buy low at a bargain, sell high...

but thats the general idea, huh?
 
i don't think google will stop, remember folks, they have a LOT on the horizon. rumored google phones, gmail 2.0, and other things

if you have the $, i'd still buy google.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

NikeTalk was created as a way of giving back to both the sneaker enthusiast community and to the greater global community of which we are all a part.

NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom