-
11-11-2020, 12:39 PM
#561
Originally Posted by Biscuit
If you want them in your portfolio, why not just buy them - IMHO. I will often buy companies I want over a period of time, add some anytime there is weakness, but I don't let the price stop me from taking an initial holding.
I'll second that strategy. I've bought many companies over the years that I thought were "too dear". I still have the likes of MFT, FPH, ATM, OCA, SUM etc in my portfolio.
-
11-11-2020, 12:43 PM
#562
Member
Originally Posted by Biscuit
If you want them in your portfolio, why not just buy them - IMHO. I will often buy companies I want over a period of time, add some anytime there is weakness, but I don't let the price stop me from taking an initial holding.
Thanks Biscuit, it seems a reasonable way.
-
14-11-2020, 10:46 PM
#563
I'd be very keen for them to do a share split!
"His loyalty couldn't be bought at any price; but it could be rented remarkably cheaply."
-
15-11-2020, 08:20 AM
#564
Member
Originally Posted by Pricey
I'd be very keen for them to do a share split!
Why would that be beneficial?
-
15-11-2020, 11:34 AM
#565
Member
It's a strange phenomenon, but people often feel more comfortable buying stocks when the purchase price per share is less even though the actual value is the same. Also, shares often tend to rise at a faster rate for a period of time after a split.
-
17-11-2020, 05:48 AM
#566
As Swala said. A high share price is often a mental barrier i.e. the company looks expensive. A lower share price looks more appealing to small investors, although it has absolutely no impact on the value of the business. Take the recent Tesla and Apple splits for example. It's purely a psychological move.
"His loyalty couldn't be bought at any price; but it could be rented remarkably cheaply."
-
17-11-2020, 07:09 AM
#567
Originally Posted by Pricey
As Swala said. A high share price is often a mental barrier i.e. the company looks expensive. A lower share price looks more appealing to small investors, although it has absolutely no impact on the value of the business. Take the recent Tesla and Apple splits for example. It's purely a psychological move.
Pretty much! In some instances having a much larger number of shares rather than fewer of the same value is a spur to liquidity with holders being more prepared to sell. No doubt there have been studies done on this and the other psychological aspects such as low versus high share price. Years of observation tend to confirm that share splits tend to have favourable impacts on share price growth beyond what maths suggest should happen.
-
17-11-2020, 11:44 AM
#568
Years of observation tend to confirm that share splits tend to have favourable impacts on share price growth beyond what maths suggest should happen.
Since when did "maths" suggest what share prices should be/should have been? Should the shareholders of the likes of CSL resent the lack of share splits? Or is this a purely NZ thing and will MFT shareholders pay if their shares aren't split?
-
17-11-2020, 01:28 PM
#569
Member
I'd heard that founder Bruce Plested has a personal goal to get it to $100 a share, so why would he agree a split..He's doing OK so far, and I'm enjoying the journey. Great company.
-
17-11-2020, 09:16 PM
#570
Doesn't sound like the Bruce I know ...
"His loyalty couldn't be bought at any price; but it could be rented remarkably cheaply."
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks