/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57618899
my bank does not allow fractions of a share being bought so this means this will require you to buy the shares on some gay platform like degiro IB or something

>>57618780
how? look at the chart. TSLA was on a good momentum, approaching $1000. FOMO was getting high. But instead of letting it cross $1000, oh nooo lets split so waggies can gamble their hard earned money on TSLA. This is retarded. Anyone with enough money to be investing on TSLA can buy it at $1000 or at $5000. What this did is just kill the FOMO momentum. Stocks are fuelled by number go up mentality. Splits ruin this.
Imagine you are seeing TLSA go to $1000. But you think. "im sure that they are going to split this shit soon, so I will not buy". So you are creating a lack of demand there, as well as killing the FOMOmomentum of psychological number barriers being broken. I doubt that the liquidity from wagies would balance out that.
My conclusion is that stock splits are bearish, and that one should just be able to buy fractions of a share everywhere as the standard. Just imagine if BTC had built-in splits. Number go up marketing wouldn't be there. Same thing.

>>57618750
I cannot buy split shares on my bank, so this may require you to sign on some wierd platform and they use weird options shit to fraction the token

>>57618911
yeah but isn't this bearish? if you believe the price may be getting too high for wagies to buy, then you may think, oh I will just wait until they split to buy at half the price. How the fuck isn't this bearish? Plus like I said, if you see it past $1000, you enter into giga FOMO mode. If they cut it to $500, it sucks. I don't see how more liquidity from wagise would compensate the FOMO from richfags as number goes up. So I don't see how splits are not bearish.