LOL, not figuring in the dilution? Well how is dilution good for a common shareholder? It only wipes out their investment more and more over time?
Companies who grow only do stock splits (FORWARD) because their companies have organically grown so much and their share price appreciated so much - it gets hard for the little guy to buy even a few shares (Apple at $500 a share, Google same, Chevron same if they'd never split, Buffets Berkshire fund at $1000's per share as he never splits it, etc)
So what, so massive dilution was slowly absorbed in the market and has managed to pump the market cap back to even or whatever with where it was years ago, despite a ever declining share price. That a BAD thing to shareholder, not a good thing?
One wants NO DILUTION and the market cap to go up because of real share price appreciation- not market cap inflation via piling shares on, never ending, diluting each shareholder portion of the pie ever smaller and smaller and smaller?
That's the entire reason that dilution is so detrimental to the common shareholder- their holdings as a portion of the company literally get "diluted away" over time.
If they owned 1/100th of the company 5 yrs ago. Then today they own like 1/1000th of the company for example- whatever the reals numbers are as they hiked the share count to over 3 BILLION O/S shares. That's bad for holders, not a good thing.
The R/S makes zero difference to dilution- it's still as real as it ever was. Because on the day they do the R/S (reverse split) not only did the share price change- but everyone's holding in their account got equally divided down by the factor of 100 or whatever it was. It's a wash mathematically.
Stock splits never change market cap or ones holdings- they are neutral from that stand point.
Not sure what the point is?
