Accounting for splits in a stock price graph
One way that is common is to show the value over time of an initial investment, say $10,000.  The advantage of this is that it doesn't show stock price at all, so handles splits well.  It can also take into account dividend reinvestment.  Fidelity uses this for their mutual funds, as can be seen here.  Another option would be to compute the stock price as if the split didn't happen.  So if a stock does a 2:1 split, you show double the actual price starting at that point.
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 "In layman's terms, oil on the commodities market has a ""spot price"" and a ""future price"". The spot price is what the last guy paid to buy a barrel of oil right now (and thus a pretty good indicator of what you'll have to pay). The futures price is what the last guy paid for a ""futures contract"", where they agreed to buy a barrel of oil for $X at some point in the future. Futures contracts are a form of hedging; a futures contract is usually sold at a price somewhere between the current spot price and the true expected future spot price; the buyer saves money versus paying the spot price, while the seller still makes a profit. But, the buyer of a futures contract is basically betting that the spot price as of delivery will be higher, while the seller is betting it will be lower. Futures contracts are available for a wide variety of acceptable future dates, and form a curve when plotted on a graph that will trend in one direction or the other. Now, as Chad said, oil companies basically get their cut no matter what. Oil stocks are generally a good long-term bet. As far as the best short-term time to buy in to an oil stock, look for very short windows when the spot and near-future price of gasoline is trending downward but oil is still on the uptick. During those times, the oil companies are paying their existing (high) contracts for oil, but when the spot price is low it affects futures prices, which will affect the oil companies' margins. Day traders will see that, squawk ""the sky is falling"" and sell off, driving the price down temporarily. That's when you buy in. Pretty much the only other time an oil stock is a guaranteed win is when the entire market takes a swan dive and then bottoms out. Oil has such a built-in demand, for the foreseeable future, that regardless of how bad it gets you WILL make money on an oil stock. So, when the entire market's in a panic and everyone's heading for gold, T-debt etc, buy the major oil stocks across the spectrum. Even if one stock tanks, chances are really good that another company will see that and offer a buyout, jacking the bought company's stock (which you then sell and reinvest the cash into the buying company, which will have taken a hit on the news due to the huge drop in working capital). Of course, the one thing to watch for in the headlines is any news that renewables have become much more attractive than oil. You wait; in the next few decades some enterprising individual will invent a super-efficient solar cell that provides all the power a real, practical car will ever need, and that is simultaneously integrated into wind farms making oil/gas plants passe. When that happens oil will be a thing of the past." From Investopedia, A stock split is usually done by companies that have seen their share   price increase to levels that are either too high or are beyond the   price levels of similar companies in their sector. The primary motive   is to make shares seem more affordable to small investors even though   the underlying value of the company has not changed. From Wikipedia, It is often claimed that stock splits, in and of themselves, lead to   higher stock prices; research, however, does not bear this out. What   is true is that stock splits are usually initiated after a large run   up in share price...stock splits do increase the liquidity of a stock;   there are more buyers and sellers for 10 shares at $10 than 1 share at   $100. Some companies have the opposite strategy: by refusing to split   the stock and keeping the price high, they reduce trading volume.   Berkshire Hathaway is a notable example of this. Something more to munch on, Why Warren Buffett Is Against Stock Splits. "not sure if I will help or just spread more gibberish but maybe the first concept I'd look at is risk tolerance.  Risk tolerance is discerning your ability to risk losing money to get better results.  So you know the saying ""the higher the risk the higher the reward""?  The way most people are going to operate is somewhere on the midpoint of behavior - not doing the riskiest thing, but not doing the very most cautious thing either.  So given that concept, some investments will be more appealing given different economic scenarios.  Typically stocks are going to reward your investment a little more aggressively than a treasury bond if the economy is humming along.  This drives prices of treasuries lower, stock yields higher.  In a crappy economy, people want to move their money into conservative investments like a treasury bond. Bond prices rise while stock prices dip.    If you google 'correlations between the market prices of stocks and the market prices of Treasury bonds' you will find plenty of helpful and hopefully not too convoluted articles a la http://finance.zacks.com/correlation-treasuries-stocks-10871.html Don't get freaked out by graphs, the graphs are just a way to put into a picture that correlation." "Bob should treat both positions as incomplete, and explore a viewpoint which does a better job of separating value from volatility. So we should start by recognizing that what Bob is really doing is trading pieces of paper (say Stocks from Fund #1 or Bonds from Fund #2, to pick historically volatile and non-volatile instruments.*) for pieces of paper (Greenbacks).  In the end, this is a trade, and should always be thought of as such.  Does Bob value his stocks more than his bonds?  Then he should probably draw from Fund #2.  If he values his bonds more, he should probably draw from Fund #1. However, both Bob and his financial adviser demonstrate an assumption: that an instrument, whether stock bond or dollar bill, has some intrinsic value (which may raise over time).  The issue is whether its perceived value is a good measure of its actual value or not. From this perspective, we can see the stock (Fund #1) as having an actual value that grows quickly (6.5% - 1.85% = 4.65%), and the bond (Fund #2) as having an actual value that grows slower (4.5% - 1.15$ = 3.35$).  Now the perceived value of the stocks is highly volatile.  The Chairman of the Fed sneezes and a high velocity trader drives a stock up or down at a rate that would give you whiplash. This perspective aligns with the broker's opinion.  If the stocks are low, it means their perceived value is artificially low, and selling it would be a mistake because the market is perceiving those pieces of paper as being worth less than they actually are.  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the stocks, and selling bonds, because the stocks are perceived as undervalued, and thus are worth keeping until perceptions change. On the other hand, consider the assumption we carefully slid into the argument without any fanfare: the assumption that the actual value of the stock aligns with its historical value.  ""Past performance does not predict future results.""  Its entirely possible that the actual value of the stocks is actually much lower than the historical value, and that it was the perceived value that was artificially higher.  It may be continuing to do so... who knows how overvalued the perceived value actually was!  In this case, Bob wins by keeping the bonds.  In this case, the stocks may have ""underperformed"" to drive perceptions towards their actual value, and Bob has a great chance to get out from under this market. The reality is somewhere between them.  The actual values are moving, and the perceived values are moving, and the world mixes them up enough to make Scratchers lottery tickets look like a decent investment instrument.  So what can we do? Bob's broker has a smart idea, he's just not fully explaining it because it is unprofessional to do so.  Historically speaking, Bobs who lost a bunch of money in the stock market are poor judges of where the stock market is going next (arguably, you should be talking to the Joes who made a bunch of money. They might have more of a clue.).  Humans are emotional beings, and we have an emotional instinct to cut ties when things start to go south.  The market preys on emotional thinkers, happily giving them what they want in exchange for taking some of their money.  Bob's broker is quoting a well recognized phrase that is a polite way of saying ""you are being emotional in your judgement, and here is a phrasing to suggest you should temper that judgement."" Of course the broker may also not know what they're doing!  (I've seen arguments that they don't!)  Plenty of people listened to their brokers all the way to the great crash of 2008.  Brokers are human too, they just put their emotions in different places.  So now Bob has no clear voice to listen to.  Sounds like a trap! However, there is a solution.  Bob should think about more than just simple dollars.  Bob should think about the rest of his life, and where he would like the risk to appear.  If Bob draws from Fund #1 (liquidating stocks), then Bob has made a choice to realize any losses or gains early... specifically now.  He may win, he may lose.  However, no matter what, he will have a less volatile portfolio, and thus he can rely on it more in the long run. If Bob draws from Fund #2 (liquidating bonds) instead, then Bob has made a choice not to realize any losses or gains right away.  He may win, he may lose.  However, whether he wins or loses will not be clear, perhaps until retirement when he needs to draw on that money, and finds Fund #1 is still under-performing, so he has to work a few more years before retirement.  There is a magical assumption that the stock market will always continue rewarding risk takers, but no one has quite been able to prove it! Once Bob includes his life perspective in the mix, and doesn't look just at the cold hard dollars on the table, Bob can make a more educated decision.  Just to throw more options on the table, Bob might rationally choose to do any one of a number of other options which are not extremes, in order to find a happy medium that best fits Bob's life needs: * I intentionally chose to label Fund #1 as stocks and Fund #2 as bonds, even though this is a terribly crude assumption, because I feel those words have an emotional attachment associated to them which #1 and #2 simply do not.  Given that part of the argument is that emotions play a part, it seemed reasonable to dig into underlying emotional biases as part of my wording.  Feel free to replace words as you see fit to remove this bias if desired." The portion of a stock movement not correlated with stocks in general is called Alpha. I don't know of any online tools to graph alpha. Keep in mind that a company like Apple is so huge right now that any properly weighted index will have to correlate with it to some degree. "Everything you are doing is fine. Here are a few practical notes in performing this analysis: Find all the primary filing information on EDGAR. For NYSE:MEI, you can use https://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000065270&type=10-K&dateb=&owner=exclude&count=40 This is the original 10-K. To evaluate earnings growth you need per share earnings for the past three years and 10,11,12 years ago. You do NOT need diluted earnings (because in the long term share dilution comes out anyway, just like ""normalized"" earnings). The formula is avg(Y_-1+Y_-2+Y_-3) / is avg(Y_-10+Y_-11+Y_-12) Be careful with the pricing rules you are using, the asset one gets complicated. I recommend NOT using the pricing rules #6 and #7 to select the stock. Instead you can use them to set a maximum price for the stock and then you can compare the current price to your maximum price. I am also working to understand these rules and have cited Graham's rules into a checklist and worksheet to find all companies that meet his criteria. Basically my goal is to bottom feed the deals that Warren Buffett is not interested in. If you are interested to invest time into this project, please see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vuFmoJDktMYtS64od2HUTV9I351AxvhyjAaC0N3TXrA" "Of course, which is why you need to have a scoring function / utility function for the ""filters"", i.e. Are you going to value it by rate of accuracy hor by a metric where wins = +2, losses = -1, such that it uses a criteria like that to decide whether or not a filter adds value, (some even use a compound effect i.e. wins = 2+e^(1+w) where w is the consecutive wins).  A metric like the above would capture the trade off between predictive power and profit. Also some traders watch their Max DD very carefully so they may be very risk averse."