Categories
Apple History

History of Apple stock splits says investors shouldn’t rush in to buy lower-priced shares – CNBC

Apple is having a great year, and its 4-for-1 stock split on Monday is expected to make the market’s most-valuable company even more attractive to a wider universe of retail investors. But the limited history of Apple stock splits says there is no reason to rush in to buy the lower-priced shares. 

The technology giant has been on fire.

Apple became the first company to reach a $2 trillion market cap earlier in August, and it eclipsed a $500 price per share. The stock is up roughly 70% this year. 

This will be Apple’s fifth stock split since going public. The company’s previous four stock splits occurred:

  • June 9, 2014: 7-for-1
  • February 28, 2005: 2-for-1
  • June 21, 2000: 2-for-1
  • June 16, 1987: 2-for-1

Apple stock-split selloffs

While the split is designed to lower the nominal price-per-share, split-adjusted Apple stock has a history of short-term selloffs.

Two weeks after the previous stock splits, shares of Apple have lost an average of 5.6%, trading negatively in all four instances, according to data from hedge fund trading information platform Kensho. That underperforms the Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tends to be a coin flip in these post-Apple stock split weeks. The Dow has eked out a positive gain, on average, trading in the green half the time.

The limited history of Apple stock splits shows that a short-term rally in shares has not been the result.

Kensho

One of the reasons most-often cited for the Apple stock split is its ability to encourage new investors.

CNBC’s Jim Cramer said the move was made to create more accessible shares, and he referenced a conversation he had with Apple CEO Tim Cook

“Tim told me last night, ‘Hey, I want more people in the stock,'” Cramer said on “Squawk Box” back on July 31.

While the iPhone maker begins trading on a split-adjusted basis on Monday, Apple announced the 4-for-1 stock split when it released its third quarter earnings report in late July.

Apple isn’t alone among this year’s high fliers pursuing a stock split: Tesla will also begin trading at a new price-per-share after a recently announced stock split on Monday.

To be clear, stock splits do not change a company’s underlying fundamentals. And though the lower-priced shares can attract smaller investors, larger investors already trading the shares can maintain more influence over the price action. The overall market environment is key, as well, and it has influenced trading after the limited number of previous Apple stock splits. 

New iPhones on display in the Apple Marunouchi store in late 2019 in Tokyo, Japan. The most-bullish Apple stock price on Wall Street is predicated on an upcoming upgrade “supercycle” that will involve up to 350 million phones.

Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images

Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA, recently noted that after its last split in 2014, Apple gained 36% over the next year, but after its 2000 split as the tech bubble burst, it lost 60%. Apple already has risen more than 30% since announcing this latest stock split in late July.

The CFRA strategist does expect the Apple split to help keep the marking moving higher, telling CNBC, “”I think we’re still going to be basking in the the glow of an accommodative Fed, combined with the increased accessibility of Apple’s share price to retail investors.”

A longer-term Wall Street bull case for Apple shares is being built on belief in improving business fundamentals. Wedbush’s Daniel Ives recently increased his Apple stock price forecast from $515 to $600, citing an upcoming iPhone 12 “supercycle” — over the next 12 to 18 months, roughly 350 million of 950 million iPhones worldwide will be ready for an upgrade.

Read More

Categories
History Natural

Natural History of Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infection | NEJM – nejm.org

To the Editor:

Information on the natural history of asymptomatic infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) remains scarce.1-3 The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) on the cruise ship Diamond Princess led to 712 persons being infected with SARS-CoV-2 among the 3711 passengers and crew members, and 410 (58%) of these infected persons were asymptomatic at the time of testing (see the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org).4,5 Here, we report the natural history of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection in part of this cohort.

A total of 96 persons infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, along with their 32 cabinmates who tested negative on the ship, were transferred from the Diamond Princess to a hospital in central Japan between February 19 and February 26 for continued observation. Clinical signs and symptoms of Covid-19 subsequently developed in 11 of these 96 persons, a median of 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 5; range, 3 to 7) after the first positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test, which meant that they had been presymptomatic rather than asymptomatic. The risk of being presymptomatic increased with increasing age (odds ratio for being presymptomatic with each 1-year increase in age, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01 to 1.16). Eight of 32 cabinmates with a negative PCR test on the ship had a positive PCR test within 72 hours after arrival in the hospital but remained asymptomatic. In total, data on 90 persons with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, defined as persons who were asymptomatic at the time of the positive PCR test and remained so until the resolution of infection (as determined by two consecutive negative PCR tests), were available for analysis (Fig. S1 in the Supplementary Appendix).

Figure 1. Figure 1. Crossing-Point Values in RT-PCR Testing of Asymptomatic Persons with SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Included in the analysis are persons who had at least one positive polymerase-chain-reaction (PCR) test for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in the hospital. With fluorescence-based real-time reverse-transcriptase PCR (RT-PCR), the number of cycles at which the fluorescence signal from amplification exceeds the background fluorescence level is determined as the crossing point (Cp), threshold cycle, or other measures by different instrument manufacturers. A lower value correlates with a higher copy number of the target nucleotide sequence.

The group of persons with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection consisted of 58 passengers and 32 crew members, with median age of 59.5 years (interquartile range, 36 to 68; range, 9 to 77). A total of 24 of these persons (27%) had coexisting medical conditions, including hypertension (in 20%) and diabetes (9%). The first PCR test at the hospital was performed a mean of 6 days after the initial positive PCR test on the ship. The median number of days between the first positive PCR test (either on the ship or at the hospital) and the first of the two serial negative PCR tests was 9 days (interquartile range, 6 to 11; range, 3 to 21), and the cumulative percentages of persons with resolution of infection 8 and 15 days after the first positive PCR test were 48% and 90%, respectively. The risk of delayed resolution of infection increased with increasing age (mean delay in resolution for an increase in age from 36 to 68 years, 4.41 days; 95% CI, 2.28 to 6.53) (Figure 1).

In this cohort, the majority of asymptomatically infected persons remained asymptomatic throughout the course of the infection. The time to the resolution of infection increased with increasing age.

Aki Sakurai, M.D.

Toshiharu Sasaki, M.D.

Fujita Health University, Aichi, Japan

Shigeo Kato, Pharm.B.

Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare Nagoya Quarantine Station, Aichi, Japan

Masamichi Hayashi, M.D., Ph.D.

Sei-ichiro Tsuzuki, M.D.

Fujita Health University, Aichi, Japan

Takuma Ishihara, M.S.

Gifu University Hospital, Gifu, Japan

Mitsunaga Iwata, M.D., Ph.D.

Zenichi Morise, M.D., Ph.D.

Yohei Doi, M.D., Ph.D.

Fujita Health University, Aichi, Japan

[email protected]

Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the full text of this letter at NEJM.org.

This letter was published on June 12, 2020, at NEJM.org.

  1. 1. Arons MM, Hatfield KM, Reddy SC, et al. Presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections and transmission in a skilled nursing facility. N Engl J Med 2020;382:20812090.

  2. 2. Bai Y, Yao L, Wei T, et al. Presumed asymptomatic carrier transmission of COVID-19. JAMA 2020;323:14061407.

  3. 3. Kimball A, Hatfield KM, Arons M, et al. Asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections in residents of a long-term care skilled nursing facility — King County, Washington, March 2020. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2020;69:377381.

  4. 4. Field briefing: Diamond Princess COVID-19 cases, 20 Feb update. Tokyo: National Institute of Infectious Diseases, February 21, 2020 (https://www.niid.go.jp/niid/en/2019-ncov-e/9417-covid-dp-fe-02.html).

  5. 5. Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. Official report on the cruise ship Diamond Princess. March 5, 2020 (https://www.mhlw.go.jp/stf/newpage_09997.html).

Read More