What exactly changes following a stock split? Why doesn't “Shares” (on the following SEC balance sheet) change?
In theory*, if a company has 1m shares at $10 and does a 10 for 1 split, then the day after it has 10m shares at $1 (assuming no market move). So both the price and the number of share change, keeping the total value of the company unchanged. Regarding your BIS, I suspect that the new number of shares has not been reported yet because it's an ETF (the number of shares in issue changes everyday due to in/out flows). Your TWX example is not ideal either because there was a spin off on the same day as the stock split so you need to separate the two effects. * Some studies have documented a positive stock split effect - one of the suggested reasons is that the stock becomes more liquid after the split. But other studies have rejected that conclusion, so you can probably safely consider that on average it will not have a material effect.
"Share sales & purchases are accounted only on the balance sheet & cash flow statement although their effects are seen on the income statement. Remember, the balance sheet is like a snapshot in time of all accrued accounts; it's like looking at a glass of water and noting the level.  The cash flow and income statements are like looking at the amount of water, ""actually"" and ""imaginary"" respectively, pumped in and out of the glass. So, when a corporation starts, it sells shares to whomever.  The amount of cash received is accounted for in the investing section of the cash flow statement under the subheading ""issuance (retirement) of stock"" or the like, so when shares are sold, it is ""issuance""; when a company buys back their shares, it's called ""retirement"", as cash inflows and outflows respectively. If you had a balance sheet before the shares were sold, you'd see under the ""equity"" heading a subheading common stock with a nominal (irrelevant) par value (this is usually something obnoxiously low like $0.01 per share used for ease of counting the shares from the Dollar amount in the account) under the subaccount almost always called ""common stock"".  If you looked at the balance sheet after the sale, you'd see the number of shares in a note to the side. When shares trade publicly, the corporation usually has very little to do with it unless if they are selling or buying new shares under whatever label such as IPO, secondary offering, share repurchase, etc, but the corporation's volume from such activity would still be far below the activity of the third parties: shares are trading almost exclusively between third parties. These share sales and purchases will only be seen on the income statement under earnings per share (EPS), as EPS will rise and fall with stock repurchases and sales assuming income is held constant.  While not technically part of the income statement but printed with it, the ""basic weighted average"" and ""diluted weighted average"" number of shares are also printed which are the weighted average over the reporting period of shares actually issued and expected if all promises to issue shares with employee stock options, grants, convertibles were made kept. The income statement is the accrual accounts of the operations of the company.  It has little detail on investing (depreciation & appreciation) or financing (interest expenses & preferred dividends)." "Your first and second paragraphs are two different cases. Moving money between a checking account and a savings account will credit Cash and debit Cash, making a GL transaction unnecessary, unless the amounts in the two bank accounts are tracked as two separate GL accounts. You might have account 1001 (Cash-Checking) and account 1002 (Cash-Savings). In that case, a movement of money between these two accounts should be tracked by a transaction between the GL accounts; credit checking, debit savings. It won't affect your balance sheet, but depending on your definition of liquidity of assets  it might affect working capital on your statement of cash flows (if you consider the savings account ""illiquid"" then money moved to it is a decrease in working capital). Basically, what you are creating with your ""store credit"" accounts for each client is an ""unearned revenue"" account. When clients pay you cash for work you haven't done yet, or you refund money for a return as ""store credit"" instead of cash, the credit is a liability account, balancing an increase in cash, inventory, or an expense (if you're giving credit for free, perhaps due to a mistake on your part, you would debit a ""Store Credit Expense"" account). This can be split out client-by-client in the GL if you wish, avoiding the need for a holding account. The way you want to do it, you'd have a ""Client Holding"" account. It must be unique in the GL and to the client, and yes, it is a liability account. To transfer to holding, you simply debit Unearned Revenue and credit Client Holding, logging the transaction as ""transfer of client store credit"" or similar (moving liability to liability; balance sheet doesn't change). Then, as you sell goods or services to the client, you debit Accounts Receivable and credit Revenue, then to record the payment you credit AR and debit Client Holding (up to its current credit balance, after which the client pays you Cash and you debit that, or the client still owes you). To zero out a remaining balance on the Holding account, debit Client Holding and credit Unearned Revenue. I don't think the Holding account, the way you want to use it, is a good idea. If you want to track each customer's store credit balance with a GL account, then create specialized Unearned Revenue accounts for each client who gets a store credit, named for the client and containing their balance (zero or otherwise). If you don't care about it at the GL level, then pool it in one Unearned Revenue account (have one Store Credit account if you must), and track individual amounts off the books." The reason to do a stock split is to get the price of the stock down to an affordable range. If your stock costs $100,000 per share, you are seriously cutting in to the number of people who can afford to buy it. I can think of two reasons NOT to do a stock split. The biggest is, Why bother? If your stock is trading at a reasonable price, why change anything? It takes time and effort, which equals money, to do a stock split. If this serves no purpose, you're just wasting that effort. The other reason is that you don't want to drive your stock price down too low. Low prices are normally associated with highly speculative start-up companies, and so can give a wrong impression of your company. Also, low prices make it difficult for the price to reflect small changes. If your stock is trading at $10.00, a 1/2 of 1% change is 5 cents. But if it's trading at $1.50, a 1/2 of 1% change is a fraction of a penny. Does it go up by that penny or not? You've turned a smooth scale into a series of hurdles. A stock dividend isn't exactly a split. Example: You have 100 shares of stock worth $5 a share (total value $500). The company wants to distribute a dividend worth 1%. You could expect a check for $5. But If they wanted to do a stock dividend they could send you 0.01 shares for every share you own, in your case you will be given a single share worth $5. Now you own 101 shares. Why a share dividend? It doesn't take cash to give the dividend. It keeps the money invested in the company. Some investors re-invest a cash dividend, some don't.  A cash dividend is generally taxable income for the investor; a stock dividend isn't. Some investors prefer one over the other, but it depends on their specific financial picture. Neither a stock dividend, a cash dividend or split changes anything.  The split changes the price to meet a goal. The cash dividend lowers the price by sending excess cash to the investors. The stock dividend lowers the price by creating new shares and retaining cash.  It company picks the message and the method. depending on their goals and situation. Remember that a company may want to give a dividend because they have a history of doing so, but not have the cash to do so. It is like a split because the number of shares you own will go up, and the price per share will go down. But a split is generally done to bring the price of a share to within a specific range. The company sees a benefit to having a stock mid priced, instead of very high or very low. If the gift was stock that they have owned for years there can be one hitch: The basis of the stock doesn't reset when it is gifted. For example if grandparents have owned stock that is currently worth $10,000 today, but they bought it decades ago when it only cost them $1,000; then if the new owner sells it today they will have a gain of $9,000. The clock to determine short term/long term also doesn't reset; which is good. The basis needs to be determined now so that the gain  can be accurately calculated in the future. This information should be stored in a safe place. Gains for dividends are investment income and the rules regarding the kiddie tax need to be followed. Since you reference SS, I surmise you are in the US.  Stock you inherit gets a stepped up basis when it's inherited. (so long as it was not contained within a tax deffered retirement account.) When you sell, the new basis is taken from that day you inherited it. It should be minimal compared to your desire to diversify. Most of the time when a stock splits to create more shares, it is done to bring the price per share down to a level that makes potential investors more comfortable. There are psychological reasons why some companies keep the price in the $30 to $60 range. Others like to have the price keep rising into the hundreds or thousands a share.  The split doesn't help current investors, with the possible exception that the news spurs interest in the stock which leads to a short term rise in prices; but it also doesn't hurt current investors. When a reverse stock split is done, the purpose is for one of several reasons: Cash changes hands when you buy or sell the stock. While you own the stock, you own it, not cash, so there is no cash to go anywhere. You spent your money when you bought. The seller got that money. It's gone. You hope that when you sell the stock, someone will give you more money for it than you spent. But they may give you less. Money doesn't magically appear either way, it comes from the buyer. After selling, you have the money -- however much you sold for -- and no longer have the stock. NOTE that this means the current value of a share of stock is interesting, but not really very relevant, unless you are actively buying or selling. What your portfolio is worth on paper is nothing more than an approximate snapshot at the moment you retrieve the data. It is not a promise of what will actually happen when you do sell.