Why and why would/wouldn't a company split their stock?
From Investopedia, A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share   price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the   price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive   is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though   the underlying value of the company has not changed. From Wikipedia, It is often claimed that stock splits, in and of themselves, lead to   higher stock prices; research, however, does not bear this out. What   is true is that stock splits are usually initiated after a large run   up in share price...stock splits do increase the liquidity of a stock;   there are more buyers and sellers for 10 shares at $10 than 1 share at   $100. Some companies have the opposite strategy: by refusing to split   the stock and keeping the price high, they reduce trading volume.   Berkshire Hathaway is a notable example of this. Something more to munch on, Why Warren Buffett Is Against Stock Splits. A reason not to split your stock is that the value of the company might fall back again, and if its stock price falls below $1 it will be delisted from the NYSE. So if the value of your company grows tenfold so the shares go from $5 to $50, you do a ten-for-one split, and then its value shrinks back to where it started, you're off the stock exchange. The reason to do a stock split is to get the price of the stock down to an affordable range. If your stock costs $100,000 per share, you are seriously cutting in to the number of people who can afford to buy it. I can think of two reasons NOT to do a stock split. The biggest is, Why bother? If your stock is trading at a reasonable price, why change anything? It takes time and effort, which equals money, to do a stock split. If this serves no purpose, you're just wasting that effort. The other reason is that you don't want to drive your stock price down too low. Low prices are normally associated with highly speculative start-up companies, and so can give a wrong impression of your company. Also, low prices make it difficult for the price to reflect small changes. If your stock is trading at $10.00, a 1/2 of 1% change is 5 cents. But if it's trading at $1.50, a 1/2 of 1% change is a fraction of a penny. Does it go up by that penny or not? You've turned a smooth scale into a series of hurdles.
"As I understand it, a company raises money by sharing parts of it (""ownership"") to people who buy stocks from it.  It's not ""ownership"" in quotes, it's ownership in a non-ironic way.  You own part of the company.  If the company has 100 million shares outstanding you own 1/100,000,000th of it per share, it's small but you're an owner.  In most cases you also get to vote on company issues as a shareholder. (though non-voting shares are becoming a thing).  After the initial share offer, you're not buying your shares from the company, you're buying your shares from an owner of the company.  The company doesn't control the price of the shares or the shares themselves. I get that some stocks pay dividends, and that as these change the price of the stock may change accordingly. The company pays a dividend, not the stock.  The company is distributing earnings to it's owners your proportion of the earnings are equal to your proportion of ownership.  If you own a single share in the company referenced above you would get $1 in the case of a $100,000,000 dividend (1/100,000,000th of the dividend for your 1/100,000,000th ownership stake). I don't get why the price otherwise goes up or down (why demand changes) with earnings, and speculation on earnings.  Companies are generally valued based on what they will be worth in the future.   What do the prospects look like for this industry?  A company that only makes typewriters probably became less valuable as computers became more prolific.  Was a new law just passed that would hurt our ability to operate?  Did a new competitor enter the industry to force us to change prices in order to stay competitive?  If we have to charge less for our product, it stands to reason our earnings in the future will be similarly reduced.   So what if the company's making more money now than it did when I bought the share? Presumably the company would then be more valuable. None of that is filtered my way as a ""part owner"".  Yes it is, as a dividend; or in the case of a company not paying a dividend you're rewarded by an appreciating value. Why should the value of the shares change? A multitude of reasons generally revolving around the company's ability to profit in the future." I was looking at NAT and NAO, NAT owns 20% of NAO.  They trade opposite each other on the price of oil, low is good for NAT, bad for NAO.  In bad times the other company's stock would probably rise, so they could trim excess shares to keep a stable monetary holding.  This would create cash in bad times, in good times they could buy more, creating a floor as well for the other. Companies do both quite often.  They have opposite effects on the share price, but not on the total value to the shareholders.  Doing both causes value to shareholders to rise (ie, any un-bought back shares now own a larger percentage of the company and are worth more) and drops the per-share price (so it is easier to buy a share of the stock).  To some that's irrelevant, but some might want a share of an otherwise-expensive stock without paying $700 for it. As a specific example of this, Apple (APPL) split its stock in 2014 and also continued a significant buyback program: Apple announces $17B repurchase program, Oct 2014 Apple stock splits 7-to-1 in June 2014. This led to their stock in total being worth more, but costing substantially less per share. Lets pretend that TELSA decided to split its stock 10 shares for 1. Now the stock is $35 dollars- would that make you happy?  You dont have any idea how companies are valued.   Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Class A NYSE: BRK.A - Oct 31, 12:58 PM EDT 280,210.00 USD Shares are partial ownership of the company. A company can issue (not create) more of the shares it owns at any time, to anyone, at any price -- subject to antitrust and similar regulations. If they wanted to, for example, flat-out give 10% of their retained interest to charity, they could do so. It shouldn't substantially affect the stock's trading for others unless there's a completely irrational demand for shares. My answer is not specific, or even maybe applicable, to Microsoft. Companies don't want to cut dividends. So they have a fixed expense, but the cashflow that funds it might be quite lumpy, or cyclical, depending on the industry. Another, more general, issue is that taking on debt to retire shares is a capital allocation decision. A company needs capital to operate. This is why they went public in the first place, to raise capital. Debt is a cheaper form of capital than equity. Equity holders are last in line in a bankruptcy. Bondholders are at the front of the line. To compensate for this, equity holders require a larger return -- often called a hurdle rate. So why doesn't a company just use cheaper equity, and no debt? Some do. But consider that equity holders participate in the earnings, where bondholders just get the interest, nothing more. And because lenders don't participate in the potential upside, they introduce conditions (debt covenants) to help control their downside exposure. For a company, it's a balance, very much the same as personal finances. A reasonable amount of debt provides low-cost capital, which can be used to produce greater returns. But too much debt, and the covenants are breached, the debt is called due immediately, there's no cash to cover, and wham! bankruptcy. A useful measure, if a bit difficult to calculate, is a company's cost of capital, and the return on that capital. Cost of capital is a blended number taking both equity and debt into account. Good companies earn a return that is greater than their cost of capital. Seems obvious, but many companies don't succeed at this. In cases where this is persistent, the best move for shareholders would be for the company to dissolve and return all the capital. Unfortunately, as in the Railroad Tycoon example above, managers' incentives aren't always well aligned with shareholders, and they allocate capital in ways advantageous to themselves, and not the company. Yes, this can and does certainly happen. When two companies each own stock in each other, it's called a cross holding. I learned about cross holdings in reference to Japanese companies (see Wikipedia - Keiretsu) but the phenomenon is certainly not exclusive to that jurisdiction.  Here are a few additional references: Originally, stocks were ownership in a company just like any other business- you expected to make a profit from your investment, which is what we call dividends to stock holders. Since these dividends had real value, the stock price was based on what this return rate was, factoring in what it might be expected to be in the future, etc.  Nowdays many companies never issue any dividends, so you have to consider the full value of the company and what benefit could be gained by another company if it were to acquire it. the market will likely adjust the share price to factor in what the value of the company might be to an acquirer.  But otherwise, some companies today trading at an astronimical price, and which nevers pays a dividend- chalk it up to market stupidity. In this investor'd mind, there is no logical reason for these prices, except based on the idea that someone else might pay you more for it later... for what reason? I can't figure it out. Take it back to it's roots and imagine pitching a new business idea to you uncle to invest in- it will make almost nothing compared to it's share price, and even what it does make it won't pay anything to him for his investment. Why wouldn't he just laugh at you? I see, thanks for the link. My initial impression is that there are probably more considerations than the theoretically optimal way to lever the company. The two tech companies I named have a fear of insolvency baked into their DNA. I would imagine their CFO's are aware of this theory and have either decided protecting against insolvency is more important -- or they've been unable to persuade the CEO/board to do the theoretically optimal thing and distribute that cash to shareholders and put the company into debt.  It's an appeal to authority but I'm still going to assume that if all the tech giants are doing it this way, it's probably the right decision for them. Even if it does conflict with this theory. Initially, Each company has 10k shares. Company B has $500k money and possibly other assets. Every company has stated purpose. It can't randomly buy shares in some other firm.   Company A issued 5k new shares, which gives it $500k money. Listed companies can't make private placements without regulatory approvals. They have to put this in open market via Public issue or rights issue. Company B does the same thing, issuing 5k shares for $500k money. Company A bought those 5k shares using the $500k it just got There is no logical reason for shareholder of Company B to raise 5K from Company A for the said consideration. This would have to increase. Large-scale price range of a stock isn't directly meaningful; that reflects how many shares exist, not just how desirable they are. A stock split, for example, doubles the number of shares everyone holds while cutting the value of each share in half; that's meaningless except that it makes the shares a bit easier to trade in. Change in price is more interesting. In the case of energy companies, that often reflects major changes in energy supply, distribution, use, or how well positioned people feel the company is for the next change in these. Fracking's surge and the questions raised against it, whether a major pipeline will or won't be built, international energy price trends, breakthroughs in renewables... if it might affect energy price, it might affect the company's strength, both absolute and relative to others. In other words, the same kinds of things that affect any stock. "I don't have anything definitive, but in general positions in a company are not affected materially by what is called a corporate action. ""Corp Actions"" can really be anything that affects the details of a stock. Common examples are a ticker change, or exchange change, IPO (ie a new ticker), doing a split, or merging with another ticker. All of these events do not change the total value of people's positions. If a stock splits, you might have more shares, but they are worth less per share. A merger is quite similar to a split. The old company's stock is converted two the new companies stock at some ratio (ie 10 shares become 1 share) and then converted 1-to-1 to the new symbol. Shorting a stock that splits is no different. You shorted 10 shares, but after the split those are now 100 shares, when you exit the position you have to deliver back 100 ""new"" shares, though dollar-for-dollar they are the same total value. I don't see why a merger would affect your short position. The only difference is you are now shorting a different company, so when you exit the position you'll have to deliver shares of the new company back to the brokerage where you ""borrowed"" the shares you shorted." It seems to me that your main question here is about why a stock is worth anything at all, why it has any intrinsic value, and that the only way you could imagine a stock having value is if it pays a dividend, as though that's what you're buying in that case.  Others have answered why a company may or may not pay a dividend, but I think glossed over the central question.  A stock has value because it is ownership of a piece of the company. The company itself has value, in the form of: You get the idea. A company's value is based on things it owns or things that can be monetized.  By extension, a share is a piece of all that. Some of these things don't have clear cut values, and this can result in differing opinions on what a company is worth.  Share price also varies for many other reasons that are covered by other answers, but there is (almost) always some intrinsic value to a stock because part of its value represents real assets. "The reason to go public is to get money. Not to be snarky, but your question is like asking, ""Why should a company try to sell its products, when if they just piled them up in a warehouse they wouldn't have to worry about shipping and customer complaints and collecting sales tax?"" The answer, of course, is because they want the money. Sure, there are disadvantages to going public, like more regulation, required financial disclosures, and having to answer to stockholders. That's the price you pay for accepting money from people. They're not going to give you money for nothing." ...ok, you understand that the board of directors don't collect all of the profit from a company, and that shareholders can sell stock, right?   It his honestly confusing to me that you have a problem with shareholders being given ownership in a company that is spun off from the company that they own.