Does an industry 'standard' have any affect on when a stock might split?
You ask if Tesla being a car company should feel a pressure to split their stock because their share price is much higher than the other car companies. But is Tesla a car company? It was founded by Elon Musk who founded PayPal and SpaceX. He sees him self as the next generation of entrepreneurs that came after Jobs and Gates. So he compares Tesla ($142) companies to Google ($856), Amazon ($284) and eBay ($52).  But even if you see Tesla as a car company, Musk sees it more like Audi ($828) or BMW ($100) then he does Ford ($16.30) just because the base price of their models ($80,000+) is much greater than Ford or GM. The theory is that keeping the share price in a lower range helps investors. But since 40% of the company is owned by mutual funds is that really a concern? Therefore most small investors get the company though a mutual fund.
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. "A stock split can force short sellers of penny stocks to cover their shorts and cauuse the price to appreciate.  Example:  Someone shorts a worthless pump and dump stock, 10,000 shares at .50.  They have to put up $25,000.00 in margin ($2.50 per share for stocks under $2.50).  The company announces a 3 to 1 split.  Now the short investor must come up with $50,000.00 additional margin or be be ""bought in"". The short squeeze is on." Yes that is the case for the public company approach, but I was referring to the transaction approach:   Firm A and Firm B both have $100 in EBITDA. Firm A has $50 in cash, Firm B has $100 in cash.  Firm A sells for $500, Firm B sells for $600.  If we didn't subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 5x Firm B: 6x  If we DO subtract cash before calculating the multiple: Firm A: 4.5x Firm B: 5x  So yea, subtracting cash does skew the multiple. Stock splits are typically done to increase the liquidity of stock merely by converting every stock of the company into multiple stocks of lower face value. For example, if the initial face value of the stock was $10 and the stock got split 10:1, the new face value of the stock would be $1 each. This has a proportional effect on the market value of the stock also. If the stock was trading at $50, after the split the stock should ideally adjust to $5. This is to ensure that despite the stock split, the market capitalization of the company should remain the same. Number of Shares * Stock Price = Market Capitalization = CONSTANT 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. In a simple statement, no doesn't matter. Checked on my trade portal, everything lines up. Same ISIN, same price(after factoring in FX conversions, if you were thinking about arbitrage those days are long gone).  But a unusual phenomenon I have observed is, if you aren't allowed to buy/sell a stock in one market and try to do that in a different market for the same stock you will still not be allowed to do it. Tried it on French stocks as my current provider doesn't allow me to deal in French stocks. "There's no need for an index to have a currency as its purpose is not to act as an asset but rather to signal investors about the performance of a collection of stocks. An index can be price-weighted, meaning that its value equals the (arithmetic) average of the prices of each stock in the index. With no stock splits, the return on this index is the same as the return on a portfolio composed of one share of each stock. If there is a stock split, however instead of dividing by the number of stocks, as you normally would when taking the arithmetic average, you divide it by the number that will make the value of the index pre-stock-split (arithmetic average) equal to the value post stock split. Then use that dividing number for all periods until a new stock split occurs.  An index can be value-weighted, meaning that its changes in value track the percentage changes in total market capitalization of the stocks in the index. Price weighted indexes ignore for ""firm size"" and percentage changes in price weighted indexes are not robust to stock-splits. Value weighted indexes take ""firm size"" into account and are robust to stock-splits. DJIA is price-weighted. S&P 500 is value-weighted." You are correct in thinking actual number of shares do not matter, the value is the value.   However there are cases where share price does play a role.  Berkshire Hathaway for example has not split because Warren Buffet believes it has cut down on the liquidity of the stock, as well as attracting investors with an eye for the longer term.   There have also been things written on the psychology of a share price. For example, some people are attracted to shares that split, because it reflects a company is growing. How are shareholders sure to receive a fair percentage of each company?  At the time the split occurs, each investor owns the same proportion of each new company that they owned in the first.  What the investor does with it after that (selling one, for example) is irrelevant from a fairness perspective. Suppose company A splits into companies B and C.  You own enough stock to have 1% of A.  It splits.  Now you have a bunch of shares of B and C.  How much?  Well, you have 1% of B and 1% of C.  What if all the profitable projects are in B?  Then shares of B will be worth more than those of C.  But it should be the case that the value of your shares of B plus the value of your shares of C are equal to the original value of your shares of A.  Completely fair.  In fact, if the split was economically justified, then B + C > A.  And the gains are realized proportionally by all equityholders. Remember, when a stock splits, every share splits so that everyone owns both companies in the same proportion as everyone else.  Executives don't determine what the prices of the resulting companies are...that is determined by the market.  A fair market will value the child companies such that together they are worth what the original was. No.  Revenue is the company's gross income.  The stock price has no contribution to the company's income.  The stock price may be affected when the company's income deviates from what it was expected to be. "Systemic and well know patterns in sales are priced in to the security.  Typically companies with very cyclical earnings like this will issue guidance of earnings per share within a range.  These expected earnings are priced in before the earnings are actually booked.  If a company meets these expectations the stock will likely stay relatively flat.  If the company misses this expectation, the stock, generally, will get slammed.   This kind of Wall Street behavior typically mystifies media outlets when a company's stock declines after reporting a record high level of whatever metric.  The record high is irrelevant if it misses the expectation. There is no crystal ball but if something is both well known and expected it's already been ""priced in.""  If the well known expected event doesn't occur, maybe it's a new normal." "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." 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. As per the chart pattern when ever a stock breaks its 52 week high. This information may differ for penny stocks,small caps and mid cap stocks If you buy stock in established companies, it is vey unlikely that they will lose all their value. Spreading your money across multiple stocks -- diversifying -- reduces that risk because it is extremely unlikely that they all lose all their value at once. Spreading them across multiple industries and adding bonds to the mix increases diversification. Of course the trade-off is that if one of the stocks skyrockets you don't benefit as much as if you had been lucky enough to put all your money in that one stock.  You need to decide for yourself how much risk you are willing to tolerate in exchange for the chance of gains.  Other answers on this site have dealt with this in more detail.