What is a stock split (reverse split)?
It was actually a reverse split meaning that every 10 shares you had became 1 share and the price should be 10x higher. - Citigroup in reverse split The chart just accounts for the split. The big dip is Googles way of showing from what price it split from. If you remember before the split the stock was trading around $4-$5 after the reverse split the stock became 10x higher. Just to clear it up a 1:2(1 for 2) split would mean you get 1 share for every 2 shares you have. This is known as a reverse split.  A 2:1(2 for 1) split means you get 2 shares for every 1 share you have. The first number represents the amount of shares you will receive and the second number represents how many shares you will be giving up.
Some companies like Royal Dutch Shell have multiple share classes to suit the tax regimes in Holland and the UK the A shares have dutch withholding tax applied and the B shares dont.  Also some split capital investment trusts have multiple share classes http://www.trustnet.com/Education/Split.aspx?ms=1 Note that your link shows the shares as of March 31, 2016 while http://uniselect.com/content/files/Press-release/Press-Release-Q1-2016-Final.pdf notes a 2-for-1 stock split so thus you have to double the shares to get the proper number is what you are missing. The stock split occurred in May and thus is after the deadline that you quoted. Well, arbitrage is a simple mean reversion strategy which states that any two similar commodity with some price difference (usually not much)  will converge. So either you can bet on difference in prices in different exchanges or also you can bet on difference in futures value.  For example if current price of stock is 14$ and if futures price is 10$.  Then you can buy one futures contract and short one stock at the market price. This would lock in a profit of 4$ per share. No, I think you are misunderstanding the Math. Stock splits are a way to control relatively where the price per share can be for a company as companies can split or reverse split shares which would be similar to taking dimes and giving 2 nickels for each dime, each is 10 cents but the number of coins has varied. This doesn't create any additional value since it is still 10 cents whether it is 1 dime or 2 nickels.  Share repurchase programs though are done to prevent dilution as executives and those with incentive-stock options may get shares in the company that increase the number of outstanding shares that would be something to note. "I can see two possibilities. Either a deal is struck that someone (the company itself, or a large owner) buys out the remaining shares. This is the scenario @mbhunter is talking about, so I won't go too deeply into it, but it simply means that you get money in your bank account for the shares in question the same as if you were to sell them for that price (in turn possibly triggering tax effects, etc.). I imagine that this is by far the most common approach. The other possibility is that the stock is simply de-listed from a public stock exchange, and not re-listed elsewhere. In this case, you will still have the stock, and it will represent the same thing (a portion of the company), but you will lose out on most of the ""market"" part of ""stock market"". That is, the shares will still represent a monetary value, you will have the same right to a portion of the company's profits as you do now, etc., but you will not have the benefit of the market setting a price per share so current valuation will be harder. Should you wish to buy or sell stock, you will have to find someone yourself who is interested in striking a deal with you at a price point that you feel comfortable with." "Being ""Long"" something means you own it.  Being ""Short"" something means you have created an obligation that you have sold to someone else.  If I am long 100 shares of MSFT, that means that I possess 100 shares of MSFT.  If I am short 100 shares of MSFT, that means that my broker let me borrow 100 shares of MSFT, and I chose to sell them.  While I am short 100 shares of MSFT, I owe 100 shares of MSFT to my broker whenever he demands them back.  Until he demands them back, I owe interest on the value of those 100 shares.  You short a stock when you feel it is about to drop in price.  The idea there is that if MSFT is at $50 and I short it, I borrow 100 shares from my broker and sell for $5000.  If MSFT falls to $48 the next day, I buy back the 100 shares and give them back to my broker.  I pocket the difference ($50 - $48 = $2/share x 100 shares = $200), minus interest owed.  Call and Put options.  People manage the risk of owning a stock or speculate on the future move of a stock by buying and selling calls and puts.  Call and Put options have 3 important components.  The stock symbol they are actionable against (MSFT in this case), the ""strike price"" - $52 in this case, and an expiration, June.  If you buy a MSFT June $52 Call, you are buying the right to purchase MSFT stock before June options expiration (3rd Saturday of the month).  They are priced per share (let's say this one cost $0.10/share), and sold in 100 share blocks called a ""contract"".  If you buy 1 MSFT June $52 call in this scenario, it would cost you 100 shares x $0.10/share = $10.  If you own this call and the stock spikes to $56 before June, you may exercise your right to purchase this stock (for $52), then immediately sell the stock (at the current price of $56) for a profit of $4 / share ($400 in this case), minus commissions.  This is an overly simplified view of this transaction, as this rarely happens, but I have explained it so you understand the value of the option.  Typically the exercise of the option is not used, but the option is sold to another party for an equivalent value.  You can also sell a Call.  Let's say you own 100 shares of MSFT and you would like to make an extra $0.10 a share because you DON'T think the stock price will be up to $52/share by the end of June.  So you go to your online brokerage and sell one contract, and receive the $0.10 premium per share, being $10.  If the end of June comes and nobody exercises the option you sold, you get to keep the $10 as pure profit (minus commission)!  If they do exercise their option, your broker makes you sell your 100 shares of MSFT to that party for the $52 price.  If the stock shot up to $56, you don't get to gain from that price move, as you have already committed to selling it to somebody at the $52 price.  Again, this exercise scenario is overly simplified, but you should understand the process.  A Put is the opposite of a Call.  If you own 100 shares of MSFT, and you fear a fall in price, you may buy a PUT with a strike price at your threshold of pain.  You might buy a $48 June MSFT Put because you fear the stock falling before June.  If the stock does fall below the $48, you are guaranteed that somebody will buy yours at $48, limiting your loss.  You will have paid a premium for this right (maybe $0.52/share for example).  If the stock never gets down to $48 at the end of June, your option to sell is then worthless, as who would sell their stock at $48 when the market will pay you more?  Owning a Put can be treated like owning insurance on the stock from a loss in stock price.  Alternatively, if you think there is no way possible it will get down to $48 before the end of June, you may SELL a $48 MSFT June Put.  HOWEVER, if the stock does dip down below $48, somebody will exercise their option and force you to buy their stock for $48.  Imagine a scenario that MSFT drops to $30 on some drastically terrible news.  While everybody else may buy the stock at $30, you are obligated to buy shares for $48.  Not good!  When you sold the option, somebody paid you a premium for buying that right from you.  Often times you will always keep this premium.  Sometimes though, you will have to buy a stock at a steep price compared to market.  Now options strategies are combinations of buying and selling calls and puts on the same stock.  Example -- I could buy a $52 MSFT June Call, and sell a $55 MSFT June Call.  I would pay money for the $52 Call that I am long, and receive money for the $55 Call that I am short.  The money I receive from the short $55 Call helps offset the cost of buying the $52 Call.  If the stock were to go up, I would enjoy the profit within in $52-$55 range, essentially, maxing out my profit at $3/share - what the long/short call spread cost me.  There are dozens of strategies of mixing and matching long and short calls and puts depending on what you expect the stock to do, and what you want to profit or protect yourself from.  A derivative is any financial device that is derived from some other factor.  Options are one of the most simple types of derivatives.  The value of the option is derived from the real stock price.  Bingo?  That's a derivative.  Lotto?  That is also a derivative.  Power companies buy weather derivatives to hedge their energy requirements.  There are people selling derivatives based on the number of sunny days in Omaha.  Remember those calls and puts on stock prices?  There are people that sell calls and puts based on the number of sunny days in Omaha.  Sounds kind of ridiculous -- but now imagine that you are a solar power company that gets ""free"" electricity from the sun and they sell that to their customers.  On cloudy days, the solar power company is still on the hook to provide energy to their customers, but they must buy it from a more expensive source.  If they own the ""Sunny Days in Omaha"" derivative, they can make money for every cloudy day over the annual average, thus, hedging their obligation for providing more expensive electricity on cloudy days.  For that derivative to work, somebody in the derivative market puts a price on what he believes the odds are of too many cloudy days happening, and somebody who wants to protect his interests from an over abundance of cloudy days purchases this derivative.  The energy company buying this derivative has a known cost for the cost of the derivative and works this into their business model.  Knowing that they will be compensated for any excessive cloudy days allows them to stabilize their pricing and reduce their risk.  The person selling the derivative profits if the number of sunny days is higher than average.  The people selling these types of derivatives study the weather in order to make their offers appropriately.  This particular example is a fictitious one (I don't believe there is a derivative called ""Sunny days in Omaha""), but the concept is real, and the derivatives are based on anything from sunny days, to BLS unemployment statistics, to the apartment vacancy rate of NYC, to the cost of a gallon of milk in Maine.  For every situation, somebody is looking to protect themselves from something, and somebody else believes they can profit from it.  Now these examples are highly simplified, many derivatives are highly technical, comprised of multiple indicators as a part of its risk profile, and extremely difficult to explain.  These things might sound ridiculous, but if you ran a lemonade stand in Omaha, that sunny days derivative just might be your best friend..." Are you sure you're not just looking at prices that are adjusted for the split, e.g. Yahoo? For example, Gilead Sciences (GILD) split a few months ago, but if you look at a price chart, there isn't an interruption even though the split is clearly marked. (Look in the past six months; it split in January). However, you could also simply be watching companies that happen to not split, for a variety of reasons. This isn't a criticism, but rather just a consequence of whatever stocks you happen to be watching.  However, a quick search for information on stock splits yields a few articles (mainly from the Motley Fool) that argue that fewer companies are performing stock splits in recent years; the articles mainly talk about tech companies, and they make the argument that even though the shares in Google and Apple have a high stock price: Google and Apple aren't all that expensive by traditional valuation   metrics. Google trades at just 15 times next year's projected   profitability. Apple fetches a mere 13 times fiscal 2012's bottom-line estimates. These articles are a bit dated in terms of the stock prices, but the rationale is probably still good. Similar logic could apply for other companies; for example, since May 2009, Panera's stock price has climbed by almost a factor of 4 without splitting. The articles also make the point that stock splits were traditionally seen as bullish signs because: Companies splitting to bring their share prices back down to more   accessible levels were optimistic in building those sand castles back   up. One could make a fair argument that the overall economic climate isn't as bullish as it used to be, although I would only be convinced that this was affecting stock splits if data could be gathered and tested. A stock split can also raise the price of a stock because if small investors feel the stock is suddenly more accessible to them, they purchase more of it and might therefore drive up the price. (See the Investopedia article on stock splits for more information). Companies might not see the necessity in doing this because their stock price isn't high enough to warrant a split or because the price isn't high enough to outprice smaller investors.  One interesting point to make, however, is that even though stock splits can drive small investors to buy more of the stock, this isn't always a gain for the company because professional investors (firms, institutions, etc.) have a tendency to sell after a split. The paper is a bit old, but it's still a very neat read. It's possible that more and more companies no longer see any advantage to splitting because it might not affect their stock price in the long run, and arguably could even hurt it. Considering that large/professional investors likely hold a higher percentage of a company's shares than smaller investors, if a stock split triggers a wave of selling by the former, the increasing propensity to buy of the latter may not be enough to offset the decline in price.  Note: My answer only refers to standard stock splits; the reasons above may not apply to a decrease in the number of reverse stock splits (which may not be a phenomenon; I don't know). "Selling short is simply by definition the selling, then later re-buying of stock you don't initially own. Say you tally your entire portfolio balance: the quantity of each stock you own, and your cash assets. Let's call this your ""initial position"". We define ""profit"" as any increase in assets, relative to this initial position. If you know a particular stock will go down, you can realize a profit by selling some of that stock, waiting for the price to go down, then buying it back. In the end you will have returned to your initial position, except you will have more cash. If you sell 10 shares of a stock valued at £1.50, then buy them back at £1.00, you will make a £5.00 profit while having otherwise returned to your previous position. If you do the same, but you initially owned 1000 shares, sold just 10 of those, then bought 10 back, that's still a profit of £5.00. Selling short is doing the same thing, but with an initial and ending balance of 0 shares. If you initially own 0 shares, sell 10, then buy 10 back, you return to your initial position (0 shares) plus a profit of £5.00. (And in practice you must also pay a borrowing fee to do this.) The advantage of selling short is it can be done with any stock, not just those currently owned." When you short a stock and the stock goes ex-div. you have to pay out an amount equal to the dividend. So in your example, GG would short the stock at $10.00, buy back at $9.00 and be charged $1.00 for the dividend. Net effect $0.00. This is a gross simplification as there are a few different ways to do this. The principle overall is the same though. To short a stock, you borrow X shares from a third party and sell them at the current price. You now owe the lender X shares but have the proceeds from the sale. If the share price falls you can buy back those shares at the new lower price, return them to the lender and pocket the difference. The risk comes when the share price goes the other way, you now owe the lender the new value of the shares, so have to find some way to cover the difference. This happened a while back when Porsche made a fortune buying shares in Volkswagen from short sellers, and the price unexpectedly rose. "Yahoo's ""Adj Close"" data is adjusted for splits, but not for dividends. Despite Yahoo's webpage's footnote saying  *Close price adjusted for dividends and splits. we can see empirically that the ""Adj Close"" is only adjusted for splits. For example, consider Siemens from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 15, 2017: The Adj Close adjusts for splits: On any particular day, the ""Adj Close"" is equal to the ""Close"" price divided by the cumulative product of all splits that occurred after that day. If there have been no splits after that day, then the ""Adj Close"" equals the ""Close"" price. Since there is a 2-for-1 split on Mar 14, 2017, the Adj Close is half the Close price for all dates from Jan 27, 2017 to Mar 13, 2017. Note that if Siemens were to split again at some time in the future, the Adj Close prices will be readjusted for this future split. For example, if Siemens were to split 3-for-1 tomorrow, then all the Adj Close prices seen above will be divided by 3. The Adj Close is thus showing the price that a share would have traded on that day if the shares had already been split in accordance with all splits up to today. The Adj Close does not adjust for dividends: Notice that Siemens distributed a $1.87 dividend on Feb 02, 2017 and ~$3.74 dividend on Jan 30, 2017. If the Adj Close value were adjusted for these dividends then we should expect the Adj Close should no longer be exactly half of the Close amount. But we can see that there is no such adjustment -- the Adj Close remains (up to rounding) exactly half the Close amount: Note that in theory, the market reacts to the distribution of dividends by reducing the trading price of shares post-dividend. This in turn is reflected in the raw closing price. So in that sense the Adj Close is also automatically adjusted for dividends. But there is no formula for this. The effect is already baked in through the market's closing prices." The bonus share also improves the liquidity however there is some difference in treatment. Lets say a company has 100 shares, of $10 ea. The total capital of the compnay is 100*10 = 1000. Assuming the company is doing well, its share is now available in the market for $100 ea. Now lets say the company has made a profit of $1000 and this also gets factored into the price of $100. Lets say the company decides to keep this $1000 kept as Cash Reserve and is not distributed as dividends.   In a share split say (1:1), the book value of each share is now reduced to $5, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital stays at 200*5 = 1000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea.   In a Bonus share issue say (1:1), the funds $1000 are moved from Cash Reserve and transferred to share capital. The book value of each share will remain same as $10, the number of shares increase to 200. The share capital increases to 200*10 = 2000. The market value of shares come down to $50 ea.   So essentially from a liquidity point of view both give the same benefit. As to why some companies issue bonus and not a split, this is because of multiple reasons. A split beyond a point cannot be done, ie $10 can be split to $1 ea but it doesn't look good to make it $0.50. The other reason is there is adequate cash reserve and you want to convert this into share holders capital. Having a larger share holders capital improves some of the health ratios for the compnay. At times bouns is used to play upon that one is getting something free. I do not fully understand the transactions involved, but it appears that there was a reverse stock split (20:1) and some legal status change as well on June 29th. This seems to be the cause for the change in valuation of the stock as the dates match the drop. https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/RMSLD/filings "In 2005, Apple announced a split on Feb 11... CUPERTINO, California — February 11, 2005 — Apple® announced today that its Board of Directors has approved a two-for-one split of the Company’s common stock and a proportional increase in the number of Apple common shares authorized from 900 million to 1.8 billion. Each shareholder of record at the close of business on February 18, 2005 will receive one additional share for every outstanding share held on the record date, and trading will begin on a split-adjusted basis on February 28, 2005. ...one month after announcing earnings. CUPERTINO, California—January 12, 2005—Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2005 first quarter ended December 25, 2004. For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $295 million, or $.70 per diluted share. These results compare to a net profit of $63 million, or $.17 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenue for the quarter was $3.49 billion, up 74 percent from the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 28.5 percent, up from 26.7 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 41 percent of the quarter’s revenue. I wouldn't expect Apple to offer another split, as it's become somewhat fashionable among tech companies to have high stock prices (see GOOG or NFLX or even BRK-A/BRK-B).  Additionally, as a split does nothing to the underlying value of the company, it shouldn't affect your decision to purchase AAPL.  (That said, it may change the perception of a stock as ""cheap"" or ""expensive"" per human psychology). So, to answer your question: companies will usually announce a stock split after releasing their financial results for the preceding fiscal year. Regardless of results, though, splits happen when the board decides it is advantageous to the company to split its stocks." 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