Why Would a Company Divide Its Own Shares? Changing the Number and Not the Value
By the BrainSnail editorial team. How these articles are written and checked, and how to tell us when one is wrong.
A company can turn every share into several smaller ones, leaving each holder with more shares each worth proportionally less. Nothing about the company changes, which raises the question of why anyone bothers.
What the operation does
In a split, each existing share is replaced by a specified number of new ones, so a holder of one hundred shares in a two for one split ends with two hundred, and the price per share halves. The total value held is unchanged, the holder's proportional ownership is unchanged, and the company's assets, earnings and prospects are all exactly as they were. Nothing of substance has happened, which is the essential point and the reason the operation is a good test of whether a market is reacting to information or to appearance. A reverse split runs the other way, consolidating several shares into one and raising the price proportionally, and is used for quite different reasons.
The reasons companies give
Several justifications are offered and they vary in how well they hold up:
- •Keeping the price in a range small investors find accessible, which mattered more before fractional shares
- •Improving liquidity by increasing the number of shares in circulation
- •Signalling management confidence, since a split follows a price rise and implies expecting more
- •Meeting requirements of indexes or exchanges that consider price
- •Reverse splits are used to avoid delisting where an exchange sets a minimum price
- •Reverse splits also remove the appearance of a very low price, which carries a stigma
What the evidence says
Studies of share price behaviour around splits find a small positive reaction on the announcement, which is puzzling given that nothing has changed. The leading explanation is signalling, in that management with private information about prospects is more willing to split because the price is unlikely to fall back, so the announcement conveys confidence rather than value in itself. Alternative explanations point to increased attention from investors and analysts, and to changes in who holds the shares. Evidence on liquidity is mixed, with trading volume in shares rising while the value traded and the transaction costs sometimes worsening, since the spread expressed as a percentage of a lower price can widen. Long-run effects after the announcement period are small and disputed.
What it resembles
Several other corporate operations look like a split and differ in what actually changes. A bonus or scrip issue gives existing holders additional shares from reserves, which has the same effect on the price and is accounted for differently. A dividend paid in shares rather than cash dilutes similarly. A share buyback reduces the number of shares and raises earnings per share, which is not cosmetic at all since the company has spent money. A rights issue offers new shares to existing holders at a discount, which raises capital and is genuinely dilutive to anyone who does not take it up. Distinguishing the operations that move real value from those that only change the arithmetic is a basic skill in reading company announcements, and the announcements themselves rarely make the distinction obvious.
Why they became rarer
Splits were once routine among large companies and became much less common, which reflects changes in how shares are traded. Fractional share trading now lets an investor buy a portion of a share, which removes the accessibility argument entirely. Trading is dominated by institutions to whom the price per share is irrelevant. Several prominent companies deliberately never split, with one famously arguing that a high price attracts long-term holders and discourages short-term trading, and its shares trade at a price no individual investor would find convenient. Splits have returned in some cases where retail participation is valued or where inclusion in a price-weighted index was affected. The whole subject remains a useful illustration that a market can respond measurably to something with no substance in it at all.
The takeaway
Each share becomes several smaller ones, the price falls proportionally, and the holder's stake and the company's substance are unchanged. Announcements nonetheless produce a small positive price reaction, best explained as a signal that management expects the price to hold. Fractional trading removed the accessibility argument, which is why the operation became much rarer.