Korean Job Discussion Forums

huffdaddy · Joined: 25 Nov 2005

http://www.usatoday.com/money/markets/us/2006-10-24-berkshire-usat_x.htm

hogwonguy1979 · Joined: 22 Dec 2003 Location: the racoon den

the main reason why? the stock has never split, Warren has kept the number of shares constant, dont think he has had any new offerings.

Companies split stocks and issue more to keep the prices down

still wild where it is

braunshade · Joined: 19 Apr 2006 Location: Somewhere better!

so, what would this mean for us if we were to buy just one at 100K??

seoulshock · Joined: 12 Jul 2005

Well, darnit -- maybe I should've bought a share when it was $63,000.

Mashimaro · Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: location, location

What price did Google begin at? I was interested in buying some but as a non-American I guessed it wouldn't be that easy.. plus I didn't have a lot of cash at the time.

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Many Japanese companies don't split their stocks, either. Companies that keep their share prices low do so because they want their shares to be liquid, traded a lot. They want small investors to buy. Companies that never split their stock don't want small investors to buy and only want institutional investors (ie banks, pension funds, etc.) to buy their stock.

Companies sometimes do a reverse split. Ten shares become one. This is to raise the price of their stock. If a stock falls below $1 then it enters "penny stock" territory and gets kicked off the big boards (eg nasdaq). Also most institutions won't buy stocks under $15 per share (or something figure like that).

My dot.com went both ways, splitting like mad during the boom and reverse splitting to keep listed on nasdaq. My joke used to be my investment strategy was to buy 1 share of Microsoft. Just wait until it does a 2 for 1 split about 32 times and I'll be worth billions.

huffdaddy · Joined: 25 Nov 2005

Mashimaro · Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: location, location

mindmetoo · Joined: 02 Feb 2004

Microsoft once sued the computer company that wrote the original DOS that MS bought and released as Microsoft DOS 1.0. Part of the deal for giving Microsoft DOS was the computer company could load DOS on its computers for free. It had to pay nothing for DOS. MS figured the company would sell 200 machines a year so it wouldn't be such a big thing. The computer company figured if they sold themselves, lock stock 'n' MS license agreement, to a bigger computer company, like HP or Compaq, that right to put DOS on any machine for free would give HP a serious competitive advantage. It would lower the price of any machine by $80. And HP would pay millions and millions of dollars for that right.

So the computer company told MS it was going to sell itself. MS said no way, you can sell yourself but the license was not transferable. The computer company said "doesn't say that in the contract." They battled it out in the courts.

Microsoft's argument was they were selling DOS 2.0 and it was no longer the same DOS. The computer company again pointed to its contract and said it said nothing about upgrades or new versions. DOS is DOS. The lawyer defending the computer company won the case. He likened it to a deal to give a person "the pick of the litter" and trying to renege on the agreement by claiming it was no longer a dog. MS agreed basically to buy the contract back from the computer company for something like $200 million.

The defense lawyer, although he cross examined Bill Gates, and had to deal with Gates' condescending attitude, he realized Gates was going to take no prisoners in business. After the case was wrapped up, the lawyer heavily invested in MS, in the early days.