I have read all The post on Re: split .
Reminds me of my brother the other day.
I told him I was going
to buy a certain stock.
He asked me how much
was it. I told him $100
a share, he said it was to expensive. I didn't make a comment.
Perhaps the historical charts are adjusting the dividend paid to reflect the split, just as they adjust the stock price to reflect the split.
For instance, stock is $100 on Jan 1 and pays $2.00 dividend.
March 1, stock splits 2:1, so stock is now $50.
April 1 stock pays $1.00 dividend.
Now, when you look at historical prices, instead of seeing $2.00 dividend paid on Jan 1, it will show $1.00 paid Jan 1 to reflect the split (everything gets divided by 2, not just the stock price)
OK, let's go back 13 years to find one exception to the rule. I'm not going to research it to see if you're right. They might have had a one time special payout in '98 or you're looking at a split adjusted dividend list. Fine if you think a split helps go for it. The more you argue the more uninformed you look. Bye.
After a split the dividend is cut in proportion, so the pay out yield is the same.
LOL not true Take ATT it split on Mar 20, 1998 2: 1 Stock Split,the pre split pay out per share was 0.224 Dividend on Jan 7, 1998, the after split dividend payout was 0.232 Dividend on Apr 7, 1998
My lord that guy is irritating. You'd think he'd listen and try to learn something. If not what's the purpose of these boards? If he wants to believe that stock splits make him money who am I to try to reason with him. He apparently owns a lot of good dividend paying stocks and it's working for him. Good luck! Some people just don't want to know the reasoning behind good investments.