So, the following comment was made: "Part of the reason for Friday's split, said Facebook spokesman Jonny Thaw, was to help reduce the price of Facebook's shares, which have risen significantly in recent years."<p>Now, a reasonable argument can be made that once shares start to be worth more than $10,000 - and certainly in the case of outliers like BRK-A (currently at $124,015/share), there is an argument for a split (or, in the case of BRK, a tracking stock - BRK-B) - simply to prevent the creation of pools that allow people who don't want to buy $10,000 in a single stock to participate. (I think that's why Warren had BRK-B created)<p>But, facebook is trading in the secondary markets (sharespost) at $72. Even assuming they double in value, that would suggest a price that anyone who wanted to purchase, could do so.<p>So, clearly, there is another reason as to why this stock is being split - and I don't put much merit in the "When a stock is split, it shows an increase in value" - I have far too much faith in the efficient market to put much belief in that nonsense.<p>My theory, is that there are other, secondary benefits from splitting a stock. My two guesses are:<p>o Bankers get to book a bunch of revenue from splitting the stock and the paperwork that goes with it, so they sell mgmt on the idea.<p>o Some legal advantage to splitting shares, and possibly doing an inventory of all the stock certificates outstanding, getting an audit of the shareholders, etc...<p>Is there anybody that has been on the decision making team for a stock split that would like to weigh in on this one?