Say Farewell to Stock Splitshttp://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/02/17/say-farewell-to-stock-splits.aspx Rick Aristotle Munarriz
February 17, 2010
Anyone who remembers the go-go trading days of the 1990s probably remembers when stock splits were trophies.
Market darlings -- particularly consumer-facing companies -- would routinely declare 2-for-1 or even 3-for-2 stock splits as their share prices climbed up the double-digit ladder. If you were a firecracker of a dot-com, a casual steakhouse, or a magnetic mall retailer, forward splits were shareholder candy.
Oh, where have all the stock splits gone?
Hundreds are the new tens
The market darlings of this generation don't appear to split, and that's creating peer pressure on the companies that would have probably declared 2-for-1 splits -- or perhaps even 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 treatments at this point -- in the past.
Let's chew on Apple. Its last split was nearly five years ago. The Cupertino cutie opted for a 2-for-1 split when its stock was at nearly $89 in February 2005. Its previous split took place five years earlier, as its stock crossed the $100 mark. You then have to go all the way back to 1987, when it announced another 2-for-1 split as its stock hit $80.
If history is any kind of teacher, Apple should have gone the split route when its stock was half of today's price. Why is it holding back now? Did we see the last of Apple's two-fers?
I have two theories. Let's see whether you can buy into either one -- or if you have a third scenario in mind.
1. Share prices don't matter anymore
There isn't a lot that is odd about odd lots these days. Most of the leading discount brokers are charging less than $10 per stock trade, making it economically feasible to buy equities in smaller, bite-sized chunks.
Forget Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK-A ) (NYSE: BRK-B ) recent split on its Class B shares. The 50-for-1 operation was done to ease the Burlington Northern purchase. Warren Buffett resisted ordering splits on his Class A shares when t