Do Stock Splits Actually Matter for Investors?

In June 2024, NVIDIA announced a 10-for-1 stock split, and its share price had already surged more than 700% over the preceding 18 months. Within hours of the announcement, social media erupted. “NVDA is going to be affordable!” shouted Reddit threads. “Time to load up!” declared financial TikTok influencers. Shares ticked up another 7% in after-hours trading on the news alone. But here’s the thing that almost nobody was saying out loud: the split changed absolutely nothing about NVIDIA’s business, its revenue, its margins, or its competitive position in the AI chip market. Not a single transistor was added. Not a single data center contract was signed. The company was worth exactly the same the day before the split as the day after.

And yet, stock splits consistently generate enormous excitement among investors. They dominate headlines, spark buying frenzies, and fuel debates on every investing forum from Wall Street to Main Street. So what gives? Do stock splits actually matter for investors, or are they just financial theater dressed up as a meaningful event?

The answer, as with most things in investing, is more nuanced than you might expect. Splits don’t change fundamentals, but they can change market dynamics, investor behavior, and even long-term returns in subtle ways that are worth understanding. In this deep dive, we’ll break down exactly what stock splits are, why companies do them, what the historical data actually shows, and whether you should care the next time a company you own announces one.

What Are Stock Splits and How Do They Work?

A stock split is a corporate action where a company divides its existing shares into multiple new shares. The total market capitalization of the company stays exactly the same — the only thing that changes is the number of shares outstanding and the price per share. Think of it like cutting a pizza into more slices. You still have the same amount of pizza, it’s just in smaller pieces.

Forward Stock Splits

The most common type is a forward stock split. In a forward split, the company increases the number of shares and proportionally decreases the price per share. If you own 100 shares of a stock trading at $1,000 and the company announces a 10-for-1 split, you’ll end up with 1,000 shares trading at $100 each. Your total investment value? Still exactly $100,000.

Forward splits come in various ratios. The most common are:

The mechanics are straightforward. On the split date, your brokerage automatically adjusts your share count and the price per share. You don’t need to do anything. Your cost basis per share also adjusts proportionally, so there are no tax implications from the split itself. If you bought 100 shares at $500 each and the stock does a 2-for-1 split, you now own 200 shares with a cost basis of $250 each. Same total cost basis, same unrealized gain or loss.

Reverse Stock Splits

A reverse stock split works in the opposite direction. The company reduces the number of shares and proportionally increases the price per share. In a 1-for-10 reverse split, every 10 shares you own become 1 share, but the price per share is 10 times higher. If you owned 1,000 shares at $2 each ($2,000 total), you’d end up with 100 shares at $20 each — still $2,000 total.

Reverse splits carry a very different connotation than forward splits, and we’ll explore why they’re often considered a warning sign later in this article.

Why Companies Split Their Stock

If a stock split doesn’t change anything about a company’s value, why do companies bother? There are actually several strategic reasons, and understanding them helps you evaluate whether a split announcement should influence your investment decisions.

Accessibility for Retail Investors

This is the most commonly cited reason, and it has real substance. When a stock price climbs into the hundreds or thousands of dollars per share, it can become practically inaccessible for smaller investors. Consider Amazon before its 20-for-1 split in 2022: the stock was trading around $2,785 per share. For an investor with a $5,000 portfolio trying to maintain reasonable diversification, putting more than half their portfolio into a single stock just to buy one share isn’t practical.

By splitting the stock down to a more accessible price — Amazon dropped to roughly $139 per share after the split — the company opens the door to a broader base of retail investors. More potential buyers means potentially more demand, greater liquidity, and tighter bid-ask spreads.

This accessibility argument was even stronger before the advent of fractional shares, which we’ll discuss later. But even today, many brokerages outside the United States don’t offer fractional shares, and many investors still psychologically prefer owning whole shares.

Index Inclusion and Weighting

This is a less obvious but potentially more important reason. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, unlike the S&P 500, is a price-weighted index. This means the stocks with the highest share prices have the most influence on the index’s movements. A company with a $3,000 share price would have an outsized impact on the Dow — potentially more influence than the index managers want.

For companies that want to be included in the Dow (or maintain appropriate weighting within it), splitting the stock down to a more moderate price is practically a prerequisite. Amazon’s 2022 split was widely seen as a move to make itself eligible for Dow inclusion, which eventually happened in February 2024. Being added to a major index means billions of dollars of automatic buying from index funds, which benefits existing shareholders.

Employee Stock Compensation

Many tech companies compensate employees heavily with stock options and restricted stock units (RSUs). When a stock price gets very high, it creates practical challenges for equity compensation programs. It’s awkward to grant an employee “0.3 shares” as a bonus, and it complicates vesting schedules. A lower share price after a split makes it easier to grant meaningful but appropriately sized equity awards and gives employees more flexibility in selling vested shares to cover taxes or other needs.

Psychological Pricing Effects

There’s an undeniable psychological component to stock prices. A stock trading at $150 per share “feels” more affordable and has more room to grow than one trading at $3,000, even if both companies have identical market caps. This is the same principle that makes retailers price items at $9.99 instead of $10.00 — it shouldn’t matter, but it does.

Research in behavioral finance has consistently shown that investors, particularly retail investors, exhibit a preference for lower-priced stocks. This “nominal price illusion” leads people to believe a $50 stock has more upside potential than a $500 stock, even when the percentage return potential is identical. Companies that split their stocks are, whether they admit it or not, tapping into this behavioral bias.

Signaling Confidence

A forward stock split can serve as an implicit signal of management confidence. Companies typically only split their stock after a sustained period of price appreciation. The split itself is an acknowledgment that “our stock has risen so much that we need to make it more accessible” — which is inherently a positive narrative. It signals that management expects the stock to continue performing well at the new, lower price point rather than declining back to pre-appreciation levels.

Why Splits Don’t Change Fundamentals

Let’s be absolutely clear about something that too many investors get confused about: a stock split does not create value. Period. It is the financial equivalent of exchanging a $100 bill for ten $10 bills. You have more pieces of paper in your wallet, but you are not wealthier.

The Same Pizza, More Slices

The pizza analogy is the simplest way to understand this. Imagine a company is a pizza valued at $1 billion. Before a 10-for-1 split, there are 10 million slices (shares), and each slice is worth $100. After the split, there are 100 million slices, and each is worth $10. The pizza hasn’t gotten any bigger. Nobody added more cheese. The value of the entire pizza is still exactly $1 billion.

Every fundamental metric that matters to investors remains unchanged after a split:

• Market capitalization: Same total value
• Revenue and earnings: Unchanged (the company isn’t selling more products)
• Profit margins: Unchanged
• Debt levels: Unchanged
• Cash on hand: Unchanged
• Competitive position: Unchanged
• Growth rate: Unchanged

The only per-share metrics that change are those directly calculated using the share count:

• Earnings per share (EPS): Decreases proportionally (but total earnings are the same)
• Dividends per share: Decreases proportionally (but total dividend payout is the same)
• Book value per share: Decreases proportionally
• Price per share: Decreases proportionally

Importantly, valuation ratios like the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio remain exactly the same. If a stock has a P/E of 25 before the split, it still has a P/E of 25 after the split, because both the price and the earnings per share are divided by the same factor.

Why Do People Get Confused?

The confusion arises because stock splits often coincide with periods of strong performance. A company that announces a split is usually one whose stock price has been rising — often dramatically. So when people look at historical charts and see that a stock continued to rise after a split, they sometimes attribute that rise to the split itself rather than to the underlying business momentum that caused the price to rise enough to warrant a split in the first place.

This is a classic case of correlation versus causation. Companies that split tend to be strong companies in the middle of strong performance streaks. The split doesn’t cause the performance — the performance causes the split.

Historical Post-Split Performance: What the Data Says

Here’s where things get interesting and a bit counterintuitive. While stock splits don’t change fundamentals, academic research has consistently found that stocks tend to outperform modestly in the period following a split announcement. This phenomenon is real and well-documented — but the reasons behind it are not what most people assume.

The Academic Evidence

One of the landmark studies on this topic was conducted by David Ikenberry at Rice University in the late 1990s. Ikenberry examined over 1,200 stock splits between 1975 and 1990 and found that stocks that split outperformed the market by approximately 8% over the following year. The outperformance persisted even after controlling for the momentum that typically precedes a split.

More recent research has generally confirmed these findings, though with some nuances. A Bank of America study covering splits from 1980 to 2022 found that stocks that announced splits outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of roughly 16% in the 12 months following the announcement. However, researchers are careful to note that this outperformance is heavily influenced by the fact that splitting companies tend to be high-quality, high-momentum companies to begin with.

Several explanations have been proposed for this “split effect”:

The Signaling Effect

The most widely accepted academic explanation is the signaling hypothesis. When a company splits its stock, management is implicitly communicating that they believe the stock price will remain elevated or continue to rise. Since management has access to private information about the company’s prospects, a split can be interpreted as a positive signal about future performance. Essentially, management wouldn’t bother splitting if they expected the stock to decline back to pre-split levels.

Research supports this interpretation. Companies that split their stocks tend to show above-average earnings growth in the quarters following the split — not because the split caused the growth, but because management’s decision to split reflected their confidence in already-visible positive trends.

The Liquidity and Accessibility Effect

A lower post-split price brings in new retail investors and increases trading volume. Studies show that average trading volume typically increases 15-25% after a stock split, even after adjusting for the increased share count. More liquidity means tighter bid-ask spreads and more efficient price discovery, which can benefit all shareholders.

This increased participation from retail investors can also create genuine (if temporary) demand pressure that pushes prices slightly higher.

The Optimal Price Range Theory

Some researchers have proposed that stocks have an “optimal trading range” — typically between $20 and $80 per share — where they attract the most investor attention and trading activity. By splitting to bring the price into this range, companies may benefit from increased market interest. However, this theory has become less compelling in the era of fractional share trading.

Major Recent Splits and What Happened After

Theory is interesting, but investors want to know what actually happened with real companies. Let’s examine the most notable stock splits of recent years and track their post-split trajectories. These case studies illustrate both the potential and the limitations of using stock splits as investment signals.

NVIDIA (NVDA) — 10-for-1 Split (June 2024)

NVIDIA’s 10-for-1 split was arguably the most anticipated stock split in recent memory. The company had become the poster child of the AI revolution, with its GPU chips powering virtually every major AI training operation on the planet. The stock had risen from around $150 in early 2023 to over $1,200 by the time the split was announced in May 2024.

The split brought the share price from roughly $1,200 down to around $120. In the months following the split, NVIDIA continued to perform strongly, buoyed by relentless demand for AI infrastructure. The company delivered quarter after quarter of record-breaking revenue growth, and the stock continued its upward trajectory. By early 2025, shares had climbed significantly above their post-split adjusted price, though not without volatility along the way.

However, it’s crucial to note that NVIDIA’s post-split performance had everything to do with its AI dominance and earnings growth — not the split. The company was growing revenue by 100%+ year over year. That kind of growth drives stock prices regardless of split mechanics.

Amazon (AMZN) — 20-for-1 Split (June 2022)

Amazon executed a massive 20-for-1 split in June 2022, bringing its share price from roughly $2,785 down to about $139. The timing, however, was less than ideal. Amazon split its stock at the beginning of one of the worst periods for tech stocks in recent memory. Rising interest rates, inflation fears, and a broader tech selloff meant that Amazon’s stock actually declined in the months immediately following the split.

The stock fell to around $85 by the end of 2022 — a roughly 39% decline from the post-split price. It wasn’t until the AI-driven rally of 2023 and continued improvements in AWS profitability that Amazon recovered and eventually surpassed its pre-split highs on a split-adjusted basis.

Amazon’s experience is a perfect illustration of why splits don’t protect you from macro headwinds. The split didn’t prevent losses when the broader market turned against tech stocks.

Apple (AAPL) — 4-for-1 Split (August 2020)

Apple’s 4-for-1 split in August 2020 came during the pandemic-era tech boom. The stock went from roughly $500 to about $125 per share. In the weeks immediately following the split, Apple’s stock surged about 20% as retail investor enthusiasm hit a fever pitch. Fractional shares weren’t yet universally available, and the lower price point genuinely opened the stock to millions of new investors.

Over the following 12 months, Apple continued to perform well, driven by strong iPhone sales, the transition to Apple Silicon, and the company’s growing services revenue. The stock gained roughly 30% in the year following the split, outperforming the S&P 500. But again, this had much more to do with Apple’s incredible business execution than the split mechanics.

Alphabet/Google (GOOGL) — 20-for-1 Split (July 2022)

Like Amazon, Alphabet executed its 20-for-1 split in mid-2022, bringing shares from about $2,255 down to around $113. And like Amazon, Alphabet’s timing coincided with the tech downturn. The stock declined about 20% in the months following the split before recovering in 2023 on the back of AI integration into Google Search, improvements in cloud computing profitability, and strong advertising revenue.

Alphabet’s split was also widely viewed as positioning for potential Dow Jones inclusion, similar to Amazon’s strategy. The company eventually entered the Dow in the same February 2024 reshuffle that added Amazon.

Tesla (TSLA) — 3-for-1 Split (August 2022)

Tesla’s 3-for-1 split brought shares from roughly $900 down to about $300. This was Tesla’s second split in two years (it had done a 5-for-1 split in August 2020). Unfortunately for Tesla shareholders, the stock entered a brutal downturn after the split, falling to around $108 by January 2023 — a decline of roughly 64% from the post-split price.

The decline was driven by concerns about Elon Musk’s attention being diverted by his Twitter acquisition, increased EV competition, price cuts eating into margins, and a general rotation away from speculative growth stocks. The split obviously provided zero protection against these fundamental headwinds.

Comparison Table: Recent Major Splits and Post-Split Performance

The data paints a clear picture: splits that coincided with strong business momentum (NVIDIA, Apple) were followed by positive returns, while splits that occurred during deteriorating macro conditions or weakening business trends (Amazon, Alphabet, Tesla in 2022) were followed by declines. The split didn’t determine the outcome — the underlying business and market conditions did.

Reverse Stock Splits: The Red Flag You Shouldn’t Ignore

While forward stock splits are generally associated with successful, high-performing companies, reverse stock splits tell a very different story. In most cases, a reverse split is a warning sign that should make investors very cautious.

Why Companies Do Reverse Splits

The primary reason companies execute reverse splits is to avoid being delisted from a major exchange. Both the NYSE and Nasdaq have minimum share price requirements — typically $1.00 per share. If a stock falls below this threshold and stays there for an extended period (usually 30 consecutive trading days), the exchange will issue a delisting warning. The company then has a limited window (typically 180 days) to get its share price back above the minimum.

When a company’s stock is trading at $0.50 per share and it executes a 1-for-10 reverse split, the share price jumps to $5.00. Problem solved, right? Not really. The reverse split addresses the symptom (low share price) but not the disease (poor business performance that caused the price to fall in the first place).

The Track Record Is Ugly

Research on reverse stock splits paints a grim picture. A study published in the Financial Analysts Journal found that stocks executing reverse splits underperformed the market by approximately 50% over the three years following the split. Another analysis showed that about two-thirds of companies that execute reverse splits see their stock prices eventually decline back below pre-split levels.

The reasons are straightforward:

• Companies resorting to reverse splits are usually in distress — declining revenue, mounting losses, high debt, or failed business models
• Institutional investors often exit — many funds have policies against holding stocks that have undergone reverse splits
• Retail investors get spooked — the reverse split draws attention to the stock’s decline, often triggering additional selling
• The fundamental problems persist — the reverse split doesn’t improve the business; it just masks the low price temporarily

Notable examples include companies like Citigroup (which did a 1-for-10 reverse split in 2011 after the financial crisis), General Electric (a 1-for-8 reverse split in 2021 amid years of decline), and countless smaller companies in biotech, cannabis, and meme stock categories.

Quick Comparison: Forward vs. Reverse Splits

The Fractional Shares Argument: Do Splits Even Matter Anymore?

One of the most significant developments in retail investing over the past few years has been the widespread adoption of fractional share trading. Platforms like Fidelity, Charles Schwab, Robinhood, and Interactive Brokers now allow investors to buy as little as $1 worth of any stock, regardless of the share price. This development fundamentally challenges one of the primary justifications for stock splits.

The Accessibility Argument Is Weakened

When Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares trade at over $750,000 per share, a fractional share platform lets you invest $100 in Berkshire just as easily as investing $100 in a $50 stock. The price per share becomes irrelevant for investment purposes — you’re just buying a dollar amount of the company.

This means the original raison d’etre for stock splits — making shares affordable for small investors — is becoming less relevant, at least in markets where fractional shares are widely available. Why would Apple need to split its stock to $125 per share when anyone can buy $50 worth of Apple at any price?

But Splits Still Matter for Several Reasons

Despite the fractional shares revolution, stock splits haven’t become completely irrelevant. Here’s why:

Not all markets offer fractional shares. While US-based brokerages have embraced fractional trading, many international brokerages — particularly in Asia, Europe, and emerging markets — still require investors to buy whole shares. For a global company like NVIDIA or Amazon that wants to attract retail investors worldwide, splitting the stock to a more accessible price still matters.

Options trading requires whole shares. Stock options contracts represent 100 shares. If a stock is trading at $2,000 per share, a single call option contract gives you exposure to $200,000 worth of stock. That’s far beyond the reach of most retail options traders. Splitting the stock down to $200 per share makes options contracts worth $20,000 — still significant, but much more accessible for individual traders. This is a meaningful consideration, as options trading has exploded in popularity among retail investors.

The Dow Jones weighting issue persists. Fractional shares don’t solve the problem of price-weighted index composition. The Dow still uses share prices, not market caps, to determine component weights. Companies with very high share prices would dominate the index disproportionately.

Psychological effects don’t disappear. Even sophisticated investors are influenced by nominal share prices. Research continues to show that retail investor engagement increases when share prices fall into the $50-$200 range, regardless of whether fractional shares are available. People like owning “whole” things.

Employee compensation is easier. Fractional shares for employee stock plans are operationally complex and not universally supported by compensation platforms. Whole shares remain the standard for RSUs and stock options.

Should You Buy Before or After a Split?

This is perhaps the most practical question investors ask about stock splits, and the answer might disappoint those looking for a simple trading strategy: it doesn’t really matter, and it shouldn’t be a factor in your investment timing.

The Case for Buying Before

The announcement of a stock split often generates a short-term “pop” in the stock price. Historically, stocks have gained an average of 2-4% between the announcement date and the effective split date. If you’re already interested in a stock and were planning to buy anyway, there’s a mild historical tailwind to buying as soon as the split is announced rather than waiting for the split to actually occur.

However, this pop is not guaranteed and is increasingly muted in the age of fractional shares. Much of the historical pop was driven by investors rushing to buy before the shares became “affordable” — a dynamic that’s less powerful when anyone can already buy any amount of any stock.

The Case for Buying After

Some investors prefer to wait until after the split, arguing that the announcement pop represents irrational exuberance that often fades. By waiting until after the split settles, you’re buying at a calmer, potentially more rational price. The Amazon and Tesla examples from 2022 certainly support this view — investors who waited several months after the split got significantly better prices.

Additionally, the initial post-split period can bring temporary volatility as the investor base adjusts. Lots of new retail investors flooding in can create short-term price distortions that resolve over a few weeks.

The Real Answer: Focus on Fundamentals

The honest truth is that trying to time your purchase around a stock split is a very low-value activity. The 2-4% average pop around split announcements is tiny compared to the multi-year returns that good companies generate through actual business performance.

Consider NVIDIA: whether you bought before the split at $1,200 (equivalent to $120 post-split) or after the split at $120, the difference is negligible compared to the multi-hundred-percent return the stock has generated since 2023 based on its AI business dominance.

Your investment decision should be based on:

• Is the company’s business fundamentally strong?
• Is the stock reasonably valued relative to its growth prospects?
• Does the company have sustainable competitive advantages?
• Does it fit your portfolio allocation and risk tolerance?

If the answers are yes, buy the stock. If the answers are no, don’t buy it. The split is irrelevant to these questions.

Berkshire Hathaway’s Famous Refusal to Split

No discussion of stock splits is complete without talking about the most famous non-splitter in the history of the stock market: Berkshire Hathaway.

The $750,000 Share

As of early 2026, Berkshire Hathaway Class A shares (BRK.A) trade at over $750,000 per share, making them by far the most expensive shares on any major US exchange. Warren Buffett has famously refused to split the Class A shares for the entirety of his tenure as CEO, and his reasoning offers a masterclass in thinking about what stock splits really mean.

Buffett’s argument against splitting is philosophical and practical. He believes that a high share price acts as a natural filter that attracts long-term, quality-oriented investors rather than short-term speculators. In his view, a lower share price would attract more volatile, momentum-driven traders who would increase the stock’s volatility without contributing to the long-term health of the shareholder base.

In his 1983 shareholder letter, Buffett wrote that he wanted Berkshire’s stock price to reflect the company’s intrinsic business value as closely as possible. He argued that frequent trading and speculative interest — which a lower share price might encourage — would cause the stock to trade further from its intrinsic value, not closer to it.

The Class B Compromise

Of course, Buffett recognized that making Berkshire completely inaccessible to smaller investors wasn’t ideal either. So in 1996, Berkshire created Class B shares (BRK.B), which represent 1/1,500th of a Class A share. Class B shares trade at roughly $500 per share (varying based on the Class A price), making them accessible to virtually any investor.

The Class B shares were further split 50-for-1 in 2010 to facilitate Berkshire’s acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe, bringing the price down to a range that allowed railroad shareholders to easily swap their shares for Berkshire stock.

This dual-class structure gave Buffett the best of both worlds: the Class A shares maintain their role as a filter for serious, long-term investors, while the Class B shares make Berkshire accessible to anyone with a brokerage account.

What Investors Can Learn from Buffett’s Approach

Buffett’s refusal to split Class A shares reinforces several important principles:

• Share price is not the same as value. A $750,000 stock can be a better value than a $10 stock if the underlying business justifies the price.
• Investor quality matters. The composition of a company’s shareholder base influences how the stock trades and, over the long term, how closely it reflects intrinsic value.
• Splits are cosmetic. If the world’s most successful investor doesn’t believe splits add value, that should give pause to anyone who thinks a split is a reason to buy.
• Long-term thinking trumps accessibility. Buffett would rather have fewer, better shareholders than many, worse ones.

Berkshire’s track record speaks for itself. The company has compounded at roughly 20% annually since Buffett took over in 1965, turning an original $19 per share investment into more than $750,000 — all without ever splitting the Class A shares. The lack of splits didn’t prevent Berkshire from becoming one of the greatest wealth-creating machines in financial history.

Conclusion

So, do stock splits actually matter for investors? The answer is a nuanced “not really, but sort of.”

From a fundamental, value-creation standpoint, stock splits are meaningless. They don’t change a company’s revenue, earnings, competitive position, or intrinsic value. A stock split is the financial equivalent of changing the denomination of your currency — the total value stays the same regardless of how many pieces you divide it into.

But from a practical and behavioral standpoint, splits do have real effects. They increase accessibility (especially in markets without fractional shares), boost trading volume and liquidity, can enable index inclusion that drives billions in passive buying, and generate retail investor enthusiasm that can create short-term demand. The academic data shows modest post-split outperformance, though this is likely driven more by the fact that splitting companies are already strong performers than by any magic in the split itself.

The key takeaways for practical investors are straightforward:

• Never buy a stock solely because it announced a split. The split itself creates zero value.
• Treat a forward split as one data point — it confirms that the stock has been performing well and management is confident, but it doesn’t tell you whether the stock is fairly valued today.
• Treat a reverse split as a warning sign. The data overwhelmingly shows that reverse splits are associated with continued underperformance.
• Don’t try to time purchases around splits. The potential gain from split-timing is trivial compared to the returns generated by owning great businesses for years.
• If you have fractional shares, share price is almost irrelevant. Focus on market cap, valuation, and business quality instead.
• Follow Buffett’s lead — focus on the business, not the ticker price. Whether a stock trades at $50 or $5,000 per share tells you nothing about whether it’s a good investment.

The next time you see headlines screaming about a major company announcing a stock split, take a deep breath and remember: the company is the same the day after the split as it was the day before. The pizza hasn’t changed. There are just more slices. And if the pizza is delicious — meaning the business is excellent — it’ll still be delicious regardless of how many pieces you cut it into.

What actually matters is the quality of the pizza maker, not how they slice it.

References

• Ikenberry, D., Rankine, G., & Stice, E. (1996). “What Do Stock Splits Really Signal?” Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis.
• Desai, H. & Jain, P. (1997). “Long-Run Common Stock Returns Following Stock Splits and Reverse Splits.” Journal of Business.
• Bank of America Global Research (2022). “Stock Split Analysis: Historical Performance Patterns.”
• Buffett, W. (1983). Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholder Letter.
• SEC.gov — “Stock Splits: What You Need to Know.” Investor Education Resources.
• NYSE and Nasdaq Listing Standards — Minimum Price Requirements for Continued Listing.
• Weld, W., Michaely, R., Thaler, R., & Benartzi, S. (2009). “The Nominal Share Price Puzzle.” Journal of Economic Perspectives.