1

I am curious to know how stock market splits (and reverse splits) affect the way that the markets show their data and charts?

For example, IMUC was reverse split 40:1 on November 2017. The historical data seems to show all historical prices as adjusted to after the reverse split. Is that appropriate to think about the stock's value in such manner?

I am asking because back in August 2016, IMUC was worth $0.07. It got the reverse split on November 18 2016, and the table shows the price to be $2.80, which makes sense because 2.80 divided by 40 is 0.07. Now that the company is struggling, today's price is around $0.33. Will that be a correct way of thinking that the actual "value" is around $0.33 / 40 = $0.008?

4

The share price on its own has little relevance without looking at variations. In your case, if the stock went from 2.80 to 0.33, you should care only about the 88% drop in value, not what it means in pre-split dollar values.

You are correct that you can "un-split" to give you an idea of what would have been the dollar value but that should not give you any more information than the variation of 88% would.

As for your title question, you should read the chart as if no split occurred as for most intents and purposes it should not affect stock price other than the obvious split.

|improve this answer|||||
  • Thank you. Why would NASDAQ list all the historical prices with the post-split adjusted value? Wont it be more transparent to have the "historical" prices be "historical"? – KingsInnerSoul Aug 9 '17 at 17:53
  • 3
    Because this would confuse readers thinking there was a huge dip or increase in value whereas this is just a technicality with no impact on company value. Looking at adjusted values you know that any dip or increase in value is meaningful. – ApplePie Aug 9 '17 at 18:02

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.