Um, you're being dense. There is no data that supports that a split causes a stock to rise. Quite possibly a stock rising causes a split. Or they are both due to some other thing entirely. You have presented nothing showing otherwise.
Speaking of wasting time...
No, I'm afraid you have it wrong.
I have presented correlation between stock splits and significant outperformance relative to other, non-split stocks. (I don't care about causation v. correlation: an increased SP is a good thing, regardless of the reason.) Since you appear to have missed the links, I'll post some of them again:
Stock Splits Pay Off—on the Rare Occasions They Occur
And:
Here’s the real reason why buying a stock after it splits can be a money maker
Key point:
Since July 1996, which is how far back the NYSE’s calculations go, the index has beaten the Wilshire 5000 index
W5000, +0.33% by an annualized margin of 12.1% to 9.0% (including dividends).
This market-beating performance shouldn’t come as a surprise, since a number of academic studies have reached a similar result.
One of the first such studies was authored by David Ikenberry, a finance professor at the University of Colorado. Ikenberry believes the market-beating performance of stocks that have split their shares traces to a “sweet spot” in which the typical company likes to have its stock trade.
Though that sweet spot is not precisely defined, companies will not split their shares, even if the prices of those shares have risen sharply, if management believes there is a significant probability that shares of their company will fall back . . . .
And:
What Do Stock Splits Really Signal? by David L. Ikenberry, Graeme Rankine, Earl K. Stice :: SSRN
We observe significant post-split excess returns of 7.93% in the first year and 12.15% in the first three years for a sample of 1,275 two-for-one stock splits. These excess returns follow an announcement return of 3.38%, indicating that the market underreacts to split announcements. The evidence suggests that splits realign prices to a lower trading range, but managers self-select by conditioning the decision to split on expected future performance. Pre-split runup and post-split excess return are inversely related, indicating that our results are not caused by momentum.
**********
Yet you go on and on as if this is
nothing.
I have asked you to either expose the methodological failings in the studies, or present sciential evidence to the contrary;
you persist in failing to do so.
Thus, with no facts, your posts simply waste everyone's time.
Please, stop.
Thank you.
