The Huffington Post Personal Finance
Log In | Sign Up | July 10, 2009

If you have something to say...
Say it on the Huffington Post


The Blog

Spread Awareness - Stumble this Big News Page


Pages:   1 2 3 4 5

Michael Russnow: AIG Plummets: Didn't the Reverse Stock Split Cause it?


Comments
19
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo
Post Comment

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

We need to stop the corruption by Goldman, bank of Amerika, and Jp Morgan. Stop the Geithner and bernanke. .

Obama's policies may not be working as well as many had hoped:
1st 100 days - There are 2.9 million more people unemployed in May than there were unemployed in January. The unemployment rate went from 7.6% to 9.4%. Since May 2008, we have lost 5.5 million jobs. The biggest losers were:

Manufacturing 1.5 million lost
Finance & Prof Serv 1.5 million lost
Construction 1.1 million lost
Retail & Leisure 1.3 million lost

good political & economic articles: http://iamned.blogspot.com

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:41 PM on 07/02/2009

Michael: In retrospect, I believe the reverse split really did cause the after- split share price to tank. It's irrational that this would happen but it did. I sold at $1.43/sh two days ago and I still don't know why other than I had an uneasy feeling about owning this crummy stock at $29/share (20 times 1.43.) It was dumb luck but wouldn't you know I bought it back today at $ 19.10 and am currently down a little again. Won't we ever learn?

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 07/01/2009

This market is chock full of bargain hunters and traders, there are few retail investors active in the market other than them. Buy and hold is dead. So, when even some blue blood stocks are below 20 bucks, why would they buy AIG, the company still has that carrion like smell. AIG got a lot of attention from the players at a buck something, at 20, its dead. You could buy a thousand shares of something with potential for a quick return, or you could buy 50 of AIG.

In this market, its the most bone headed move I have seen yet. Give it time...with the interest it gets, the price will be back down to a "playable" range, somewhere below 5. Citi, take note....

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:11 PM on 07/01/2009

Market moves are based on percentages, and if there are a ton more of outstanding shares (pre-reverse-split) it would be harder to move the stock, say 20% in a day.

Technically a stock priced at 30, going up 20%, you end up at 36, but at $1 its $1.20.

If you have 1000 shares at $1, it goes up 20% to 1.2, you have the same amount of earnings as if you have now 50 shares and the stock was at 20 going up to 24. Either way you have a profit of $200.

Less people may be inclined to move into the stock at $30, due to the risk factor, but its moves should be larger moves (# wise, not % wise) with less shares outstanding. It may look prettier for a stock thats at $1 to go to $2, but the chances of that are just as high as it being at $30 and going to $60 since it would take more participants at $1-$2 range to move the stock

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:55 PM on 07/01/2009

i too own AIG. bought it at .49 and twice sold rebought and sold again. i believe the price runup was hedgefund guys. you weren't buying value, but speculation, plain and simple. the reason there was so much action when it was $1-2.00 is because of the spread, the precent of profit. when AIG was at say $1.60, it could fairly easily go to say $3.20 and you could easily double your money. at $20.00 it has to go to 40.00,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Reply    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 07/01/2009
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect