http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...22/BU241IG2EJ.DTL bitte vor dem posten ganz durchlesen nicht sich die einzelnen sätze raus picken. Proponents of the reverse split cite the institutional benefits provided by the move. Not only will institutions previously prohibited from buying single digit equity securities now be able to buy Citigroup shares, but institutions will also be able to pay lower commissions because the current 29 billion shares outstanding will be reduced to a measly 2,900,000,000 shares. In reality, reducing share count through a reverse split may fool a few unknowledgeable speculators, but prudent investors understand a reverse split does not impact the value of the company one iota. The fact of the matter is that earnings and cash flow growth will be the main drivers behind institutional shareholder buying of Citigroup’s stock. Famous investor John Templeton simply stated, “In the long run, the stock market indexes fluctuate around the long-term upward trend of earnings per share.” Peter Lynch appreciated the importance of earnings too: People may bet on hourly wiggles of the market but it’s the earnings that waggle the wiggle long term.
So while Citigroup may not be a horrible stock, the announcing of a 1 for 10 reverse stock split will not be a share price savior. So rather than let the illusion of capital structure gimmicks inform your decisions, investors would be better served by focusing on the sustainability and growth of earnings and cash flows. |
Thread abonnieren
