What is the different between 2 :1 split and 1:1 split
"There is no such thing as a ""one for one"" split. It's either N for 1, or 1 for N in a reverse split.  And for either, N can't be 1.  Yes a 3:2 can happen, but I still read it as 1.5 for 1." I'm guessing you're conflating bonus share issuance with stock split.  That seems very common to me, from a quick search; there's even some issues of terminology between the US and Europe, I think - it seems some Europeans may use Bonus Shares to mean Stock Split, as opposed to the more common meaning in the US of Stock Dividend. Sometimes a bonus share issuance is (incorrectly) called a stock split, like in this public announcement from STADA in 2004.  It is a 1:1 bonus share issuance (meaning they issue one bonus share to everyone who has one share now), but it is in essence the same thing as a stock split (a 2:1 stock split, namely).  They combined the 1:1 from bonus share with the wording 'split', causing the confusion. Bonus share issuance, also known as a stock dividend, is covered well in this question/answer on this site, or from a search online.  It has no obvious effect initially - both involve doubling shares out there and halving the price - but it has a substantially different treatment in terms of accounting, both to the company and to your tax accountant. The 1 for 1 split could be the case where a company is being split into two parts. The new part may be spun off, or sold to another company. Any time a company splits into two parts, the ratio of the resulting companies needs to be determined.
"EDIT quid keenly identified the 1:7 reverse split In May 2017.  In a 1:7 reverse split, your shares are worth 7 times as much per share but you have 1/7 the amount of shares.  A share worth $3.78 now was worth (all else being equal) $0.54 a month ago.   So a call with a $2.50 strike a month ago was well out-of-the-money, and would now be the equivalent of a call with a $17.50 strike.  A $17.50 call with a $3.78 underlying (or a $2.50 call with a $0.54 underlying) would reasonably be worth only 5 cents. So I now suspect that the quote is a stale quote that existed pre-split and hasn't been adjusted by the provider. OLD ANSWER I can find no valid reason why those calls would be so cheap.  The stock price has been trending down from its onset in 2000, so either no one expects it to be above $2.50 in a month or it's so illiquid that there's not any real data to evaluate the options.  They did pay some massive (30%) dividends in 2010 and 2012, they've been hemorrhaging cash for the past 4 years at least, and I have found at least on ""strong sell"" rating, so there's not much to be optimistic about.  NASDAQ does not list any options for the stock, so it must be an OTC trade.   With an ask size of 10 you could buy calls on 1,000 shares for $0.05, so if you can afford to lose $50 and want to take a flyer you can give it a shot, but I suspect it's not a valid quote and is something that's been manufactured by the option broker." Victor, Yes the drop in price does completely cancel the dividend at first. However, as others have noted, there are other forces working on the price as well. If dividends were pointless then the following scenario would be true: Let's assume, hypothetically, two identical stocks, only one of which pays a 2% annual dividend quarterly. At the end of the year we would expect the share price of the dividend stock to be 2% lower than the non-dividend stock.  And an equal investment in both stocks would yield exactly the same amount of money. So that is a hypothetical, and here is real market example: I compared, i.e. took the ratio of Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF (VOO) closing price to the S&P 500 Index closing price from sep 9, (2010-2014), after accounting for the VOO 2013 split. The VOO pays a quarterly dividend(about 2%/year), the S&P is an index, hence no dividend. The VOO share price, reduced each quarter by the dividend, still grew more than the S&P each year except 2012 to 2013, but looking at the entire 4yr period the VOO share price grew 80.3987% while S&P grew 80.083% (1/3 of 1% more for VOO). VOO does drop about 1/2% relative to S&P on every ex date, but obviously it makes it up. There are other forces working on VOO. VOO is trade-able, therefore subject to supply/demand pressures, while the S&P 500 is not. So for the VOO ETF the data does not indicate pointless dividends but instead implies dividends are free money. StockCharts.com supports this.  S&P500 for last 1244 days (9/8/2010) shows 90% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?%24SPX while VOO for last 1244 days shows 105% growth http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?VOO There are many ways to calculate the return, and every way will give you a different results in terms of a percentage-value. One way to always get something meaningful - count the cash. You had 977 (+ 31) and in the end you have 1.370, which means you have earned 363 dollars. But what is your return in terms of percentage? One way to look at it, is by pretending that it is a fund in which you invest 1 dollar. What is the fund worth in the beginning and in the end? The tricky part in your example is, you injected new capital into the equation. Initially you invested 977 dollars which later, in the second period became worth 1.473. You then sold off 200 shares for 950 dollars. Remember your portfolio is still worth 1.473, split between 950 in cash and 523 in Shares. So far so good - still easy to calculate return (1.473 / 977 -1 = 50.8% return). Now you buy share for 981 dollars, but you only had 950 in cash? We now need to consider 2 scenarios. Either you (or someone else) injected 31 dollars into the fund - or you actually had the 31 dollars in the fund to begin with. If you already had the cash in the fund to begin with, your initial investment is 1.008 and not 977 (977 in shares and 31 in cash). In the end the value of the fund is 1.370, which means your return is 1.370 / 1.007 = 36%. Consider if the 31 dollars was paid in to the fund by someone other than you. You will then need to recalculate how much you each own of the fund. Just before the injection, the fund was worth 950 in cash and 387 in stock (310 - 200 = 110 x 3.54) = 1.339 dollars - then 31 dollars are injected, bringing the value of the fund up to 1.370. The ownership of the fund is split with 1.339 / 1.370 = 97.8% of the value for the old capital and 2.2% for the new capital. If the value of the fund was to change from here, you could calculate the return for each investor individually by applying their share of the funds value respective to their investment. Because the value of the fund has not changed since the last period (bullet 3), the return on the original investment is (977 / 1.339 - 1 = 37.2%) and the return on the new capital is (31 / 31 = 0%). If you (and not someone else) injected the 31 dollar into the fund, you will need to calculate the weight of each share of capital in each period and get the average return for each period to get to a total return. In this specific case you will still get 37.2% return - but it gets even more comlex for each time you inject new capital. "here's an all-too-common anecdote which gives me that impression:  Executive summaries, PowerPoint etc. have slowly made most leaders slow and ineffective at dealing with change. I worked in a company that was adamant to continue to produce a DSL modem/Wifi Router/In-Room movie service box as their next product that would be installed per room into a Dslam on site in hotels. When I tried to explain to them people are just going to download porn online, cat-5 and a few Wifi routers are 1/10th the price and a Dlam is a pain in the troubleshoot over the phone they just ignored me. Why? Well they said they had been with the company for far longer, seniority was their excuse to drive a company into the ground. They never gave me one technical or analytical reason why their monstrosity of a project was actually worth pursuing, the actually thought they knew more about technology than their engineers, technicians and tech support because they had been sitting in rooms listening about technology at maybe a 10th grade level for 30 years. Every one of them had business degrees, even the CTO but that is not too bad on its own. It was the fact that they had never ventured out of their academic discipline. Their book shelves, if they had any, were filled with popular management books, self-help guides and dieting books. Oh man, sorry for the long rant, I hated that place. TL;DR: Management in MBA-led technical companies after a certain amount of time imho just becomes a bunch of deluded, self-righteous good old boys that will drive your company like 60 year old drunk frat boys at the wheel of a school bus.  my background is in computational bio, which is close to economics math-wise.  Let me do a play-by-play takedown of those things, and their dependency on context.  1) communicating with stakeholders  How is this different from communication skills generally? stakeholders are not a homogenous group, so the statement is a derp.  2)negotiating goals  much like the first, this is some ""communications"" herpderp.  Key point is that understanding goal feasibility is dependent on experience with the system those goals measure, so this fake skill splits between expertise(as I mentioned) and bullshitting(aka ""communications"").  3)Developing a strategy   falls under expertise because it is most essential to understand technical feasibility.  You cannot delegate tasks well unless you  understand exactly how to perform those tasks.  4)**leading** an organization to accomplish said goals.  the first word made your definition recursive, sweetie" Degree of Operating Leverage (DOL) measures the percent change in EBIT given a 1% change in Revenue. In other words, if DOL is 1.5, then increasing Revenue by 1% will increase EBIT by 1.5%.  Degree of Financial Leverage (DFL) measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in EBIT.  Degree of Total Leverage (DTL) cuts EBIT out and measures the percent change in NI given a 1% change in Revenue.   What all three of these numbers measure is “elasticity.” The elasticity between two variables is always the percentage change effect on one due to a 1% change in the other.   Before we talk about why you would multiply elasticities, let’s first just look at absolute changes between a change of three variables, X Y and Z. Lets say X impacts Y (X-&gt;Y) and Y impacts Z (Y-&gt;Z). To make it even more concrete, let’s imagine a classroom where every student is required to have 2 books and every book has 100 pages. So X = # students, Y = # of books, and Z = # of pages. If we add one student to the class, we need to add 2 books. If we add 1 book to the class, we have added 100 pages. With absolute changes like this it is obvious that we don’t add, we multiply. In other words, to directly see the impact of a new student on the number of pages (X -&gt; Z), we would say 1 student -&gt; 2 books -&gt; 200 pages. To say 102 pages would obviously be silly.   For percent changes, this looks pretty similar. To make it easy say the class has 100 students. So adding 1 student is a 1% change. Then we go from 200 books to 202 books, a 1% change. So the degree of Student to Book Leverage is 1 (which make sense there are no “fixed pages”). We go from 20,000 pages to 20,200 pages, also a 1% change so the degree of Book to Page leverage is also 1. Thus, the Student to Page leverage is also just a flat 1.   Let’s add fixed amounts. The teacher has a single 2,000 page book on how to teach. We’ll assume the class has 20 students. So we start with 20*2 + 1 = 41 books and 40*100 + 2,000 = 6,000 pages. Let’s add a student. We have a 21/20 -1 = 4% increase in students. 43/41 -1 = 4.89% increase in books. 6,200/6,000 – 1 = 3.33% increase in pages. So the Degree of Student to Book Leverage is 4.00/4.89 = 0.818 and the Degree of Book to Page Leverage is 4.89/3.33 = 1.47. And the direct Student to Page Leverage is 4.00/3.33 = 1.20. Again, note that here it would be silly to add the degrees of leverage, and when we do multiply them we get 0.82*1.47 = 1.2, the right answer.   From here the application to EBIT [= Sales - Fixed Cost - Variable Cost = (Gross Margin * Sales) - Fixed Cost] and the application to EPS [= EBIT - Interest – Taxes = (1 – tax rate)*(EBIT – Interest)] should be obvious. I can supply the full proof mathematically, however, if you would like. "When portfolio positions are reported in percentages, those percentages are relative to the portfolio's base equity.  When you start out, that is equal to the cash you have in a portfolio.  Later it's the net equity of the portfolio (i.e., how much money you could withdraw if you were to exit all your positions). If you put $5,000 into your account and are long and short 50%, then you are long $2,500 and short $2,500.  If it's 100% and -100%, then long and short $5,000. ""Leverage"" is often computed gross (as if all positions were long).  So if you have 100% and -100%, then your broker may say you are ""levered 2 to 1.""  That is, your gross exposure is twice as large as your underlying base equity." See http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/04/30/why-the-sec-should-look-at-levered-etfs/?dlvrit=60132, http://symmetricinfo.org/2011/04/are-investors-in-levered-short-treasury-etfs-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen-pt1/, and the articles linked from it: The issue with holding a levered ETF past 1 day is that investors expose themselves to path dependency in the underlying.... The reason for the difference in payouts comes from the fact that the manager of the levered ETF promises you a multiple of the daily returns of the underlying. To be able to promise you these daily returns, the ETF manager has to buy/sell some of the underlying every day to position himself to have a constant leverage ratio the next day. The short video below explains this process in detail for a 2x long ETF, but the same result holds for a 2x short ETF: the manager has to buy more of the underlying on a day when the underlying increases in value and sell more of the underlying when the underlying goes down in value . To make you happy. The thing is, if they split 10 for 1, its still the exact same value in total. There are just more shares that are worth 35 instead of 350each. You need to know things like how many shares there are &lt;the float&gt; how rapidly the company is growing. If it has earnings at all and how much. There is a lot more to the value of a company than the price of the stock alone.