Splits are purely for psychological reasons (ie look how attractive this is at 50 vs 100) or need for additional capital raising needs (I can raise my cap faster now with more buyers). Neither really matches what DECK is looking at, so what would be the rationale to split? For MA, it made sense on the psychological factor as a stock at 75 is likely to be bought vs 750. DECK did not split at 120 three years ago or have any inclination to do so...why do it now?
The other thing about splits - before massive share buybacks, they used to look attractive as a company was growing strong. Now companies do the split, buyback shares, and reissue it as options to directors and C personnel, hence no real gain on shareholder value, but some very wealthy higher-up leaders...and an easier to meet/beat EPS (hence why today revs tell the real story of the company's health).
The only reason for a split quite honestly would be to raise liquidity with outstanding shares. If the company did a 3 for 1, the float would triple and make the stock less volatile when some guy with a big position dumps.
But for a long term investor it really doesn;t make much of a difference. Buffet has never cared....just look at berkshire hathaway.
Seriously, who gives a $$$$? Honestly, split or no split, I have learned does nothing remotely for stocks. My generation is not paying attention to the stock market to the point that I am looked at as an unintelligent gambler to people my age.
The money managers don;t care how much something costs. They buy with whatever cash they have because they only get a percentage of the money they risk so why not risk all of it? Its OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, OPM. They would be stupid not to use it. But just take a look at all of their subpar returns relative to the market.
Bottom line, wasting time thinking about stock splits is not thwhile. You get nothing from it. Literally, whether you have 100 shares at 84 or 200 at 42.....SAME VALUE.