What's a stock that hasn't been split?

[bolbim33]

Anyone know of a stock that has never been split and never paid dividends and has been around for at least one year. It's gotta be on NYSE or NASDAQ.

 

[dexvx]

Check Warren Buffet's company.

Berkshire Hathaway, it has not split since its inception and its stock is priced at a hefty $71K per share.

 

[NewForumMember]

that can't be hard to find given the market situation

 

[OrganizedChaos]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Check Warren Buffet's company.

Berkshire Hathaway, it has not split since its inception and its stock is priced at a hefty $71K per share.

up 900 points, thats nuts.

 

[LordRaiden]

DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA*******!!!!! Kinda wish I would have been around to get involved in the IPO of that company. I'm be major league rich by now! :Q

 

[ixwesleyxi]

gotta find one of those penny stocks...im sure those companies havent split

 

[fr]

Just took a few seconds to find:

MALL (PC Mall)
LEXR (Lexar Media)
STOR (Storage Networks)

I'm not sure about never having paid dividends.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: dexvx
Check Warren Buffet's company.

Berkshire Hathaway, it has not split since its inception and its stock is priced at a hefty $71K per share.

That's insane... what kind of company is it? I guess they don't want any new investors.

 

[tcsenter]

That's insane... what kind of company is it? I guess they don't want any new investors.

Berkshire Hathaway gets a steady flow of new investors. Small, but steady.

Warren Buffet doesn't believe in splits. Hathaway is only slightly off its 1998 peak and will most certainly be among the first stocks to reach its pre-market crash value.

 

[JonathanM]

Berkshire Hathway's primary business is Insurance.

Berkshire Hathaway is the parent company of GEICO, See's Candies, and other companies.

Berskhire owns portions of Disney, The Washington Post, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds.

 

[MeanMeosh]

Originally posted by: boLbim33
Anyone know of a stock that has never been split and never paid dividends and has been around for at least one year. It's gotta be on NYSE or NASDAQ.

berkshire hathaway. i've been quasi-following it since 97 or 98.

edit: symbol is BRKA

 

[Aquaman]

kind of like a mutual fund (or a holding company) but with no limit to how much stock it can buy into one company (MF have a set limit that they can buy of one company).

They also have a new (2-3 years old) B class share but it's like $5000ish I think.

WB basically is a value investor. He only buys companies that he knows what the product or service is. That is why he was not hit by the tech crash (or at least not as much as others).

Cheers,
Aquaman

 

[Zebo]

BRKA is voting , while the others arn't. But who cares? Who else would you choose to lead the company?

There are plenty of "value" investors. Problem is what consititutes value

Heres Buffetts model, so unlike the trend of all 90's economists and investors phantom wealth ceation claims of growing asset prices represent fully valid wealth creation. It's kinda bitting them in the ass but will only get worse.

 

[brxndxn]

Warren Buffet doesn't believe in splits. Hathaway is only slightly off its 1998 peak and will most certainly be among the first stocks to reach its pre-market crash value.

It's not necessarily that Buffet doesn't believe in splits.. He was quoted as saying that he "didn't want to worry about messing with the riff-raff." BTW, that's us.

I hate Warren Buffet. He didn't lose during the dot com bust... neither did a lot of huge investors - many of which recommended the exact opposite things they were doing during that era. Why? because that way we could lose money while they made money. The whole thing about the stock market is that if someone is making money, someone else is losing money. It wasn't the huge wealthy people that never spend their money that lost big during that time. Common investors like us have no real insight other than what the analysts recommend. When analysts recommend exactly the opposite of what they're doing, and when analysts are completely unregulated and their track records unphased, then they can be used as tools to encourage irrational buying and selling.

It seems like more and more the market is just one systematic way to screw the person with less money to invest. People like Warren Buffet, while being hailed as a business genius, are terrible for the economy because they have absolutely zero cash-flow into the retail market.. IE: Buffet doesn't buy stuff with his money.

And.. people like us cannot ever be completely educated about the market until insider trading is totally thrown out of the window. We still can't be completely educated because the very expensive tools that huge financial firms use to trade are unavailable to us. Also, the current best quotes on stocks are also unavailable to us. IE: If Morgan Stanley wants to buy AMD, at 3:55:45 PM, they will maybe get a price quoted at $8.01, whereas Joe Blow would get a quote of $8.10 at 3:55:45 PM. Basically, the spreads are less the higher you get in the financial chain. Certain laws are in place (and currently going into place) that prevent favored spreads like that, but they'll never fully prevent the unfairness that affects the common do-it-yourself investor.

EDIT: Just to clarify something, a spread is the difference between a buy price and a sell price that is just pure profit for whatever firm you are using to buy and sell your stocks. So, the market source will see a spread of maybe 1 penny with a sell price of $8.01 and a buy price of $8.02. Then, the investement will see a spread of maybe $7.59 and $8.05. Then, you, using that firm for investements, will see a spread of maybe $7.50 and $8.10.

That way, those firms are making money no matter if there's buying or selling.




:Q <-- They brought back the new shocked icon?? YAY!

 

[Hector13]

Common investors like us have no real insight other than what the analysts recommend. When analysts recommend exactly the opposite of what they're doing, and when analysts are completely unregulated and their track records unphased, then they can be used as tools to encourage irrational buying and selling.

Given you negative feeling towards analysts, why on earth would you listen to them?

It seems like more and more the market is just one systematic way to screw the person with less money to invest. People like Warren Buffet, while being hailed as a business genius, are terrible for the economy because they have absolutely zero cash-flow into the retail market.. IE: Buffet doesn't buy stuff with his money.

The mere fact that he invests so much of his money does plenty of good for the economy.

And.. people like us cannot ever be completely educated about the market until insider trading is totally thrown out of the window. We still can't be completely educated because the very expensive tools that huge financial firms use to trade are unavailable to us.

I agree that the "common investor" is never going to be as "educated" as an analyst at a big wall st. firm (if you consider them educated), but that has nothing to do with insider trading. I have never understood why "common investors" (who admit to knowing nothing about stocks) buy individual names?? It's just plain stupid. There will be no way you can keep up with all the information about said company as well as wall st. (or "day traders" or others) firm will, so you are almost guaranteed to lose. Plus, you get absolutely no diversification. This is why you should be buying mutual funds, not individual stocks.

Also, the current best quotes on stocks are also unavailable to us. IE: If Morgan Stanley wants to buy AMD, at 3:55:45 PM, they will maybe get a price quoted at $8.01, whereas Joe Blow would get a quote of $8.10 at 3:55:45 PM. Basically, the spreads are less the higher you get in the financial chain. Certain laws are in place (and currently going into place) that prevent favored spreads like that, but they'll never fully prevent the unfairness that affects the common do-it-yourself investor.

Not only is that not the case, but that would be illegal (at least in the US); if you put in a buy order for AMD at the same time as a wall st. firm, you will get at least as good of a price as the wall st. firm. Now, you may have to pay much bigger commissions (which for a regular retail investor, will be much more costly than the spread), but that is a different issue.

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: boLbim33
Anyone know of a stock that has never been split and never paid dividends and has been around for at least one year. It's gotta be on NYSE or NASDAQ.

Out of curiosity, what is this for?

 

[Zebo]

He never lost because Buffett never invested in tech, and even he says HIS stock is overvalued today (or he would not be selling call options). !!! Anyway you have plenty of ammo for sound investing. Start with a decent PE ratio (IMO less than 5), which is hard to find but maybe it's time to look other places. My dad and I are currently building four homes on a 2 1/2 acre parcel and I assure you returns will be over 25% without lifting a hammer. Right now the stock market is overvalued because EVERYONE is trying to get something for nothing.

As for your thoughts on the little guy getting screwed I do agree to a certain extent however "you can't con an honest man". Everyone KNOWS these prices are inflated but they are still paying them with the hope there's a sucker dumber than they are to buy for just a little more than they did.

Income? forgettabboutit.

 

[ElFenix]

porsche has never split

 

[sandmanwake]

Oh come on, you're just jealous of Warren Buffet. Like someone here said, the real reason he didn't lose out in the tech crash was because he didn't buy tech stocks. He said he didn't take part in the tech frenzy because he didn't understand enough about these tech companies and their products, so he stuck with what he knew. In doing so, other investors laughed at him for being too cautious--now who's laughing?