Past history is no proof for future results. Apple for instance. Closed 1st week of Jan 1990 at 9.43 per share. Closed the last week of Jan 1999 at 10.29 per share. No splits over that 10 year period and paid out a total of about 75 cents per share over that 10 year period. look at what has happened since (really since 2004).

I notice you've now written this twice, yet skipped my post where I highlight the OP's quote in which it says "adjusted for all splits, dividens, etc"

Cause, OP is either lying or wrong. Use google or yahoo finance...

2001 microsoft stock = $27 per share

2003 2:1 share split

2011 microsoft stock = $28 per share

How is this equal when "adjusted"?

Which means they are almost the same price x2 the amount of shares.  The person would have double the shares at around the same price.   Here was the split in 2003.

From Wiki:

When a stock splits, many charts show it similarly to a dividend payout and therefore do not show a dramatic dip in price. Taking the same example as above, a company with 100 shares of stock priced at $50 per share. The company splits its stock 2-for-1. There are now 200 shares of stock and each shareholder holds twice as many shares.

The price of each share is adjusted to $25. Based on this example you might expect to see the stock dropping from $50 to $25. This would cause chaos in the market as investors would panic if they did not take time to realize that there was a stock split.

So what is done is something called adjusted close price. This adjusted close price will take all the closing prices before the split and divide them by the split ratio. So when you look at the charts it will seem as if the price was always $25. Both the Yahoo! historical price charts^[1] and the Google historical price charts^[2] show the adjusted close prices.

This would seem to suggest that the charts have been adjusted, so the price wouldn't have actually been $27 per share in 2001. It would have been $54, but the closing price pre-split has been adjusted down by 50% on Yahoo charts.

As such, it is entirely possible that the $27 per share (2001) is adjusted, so it can be directly compared to the $28 per share in 2011.

Those sites are adjusted for splits, which means that the prices you were looking at pre-split were actually 54$, not 27.

No the price was 48.30 before the split

http://www.microsoft.com/investor/InvestorServices/FAQ/default.aspx#section_1

Lets look at 10 year history -  http://www.google.ca/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:MSFT

The way I am inerpreting this is if you wanted to buy a MS share in 2001, you would have had to pay 27 dollars no? Then in 2003 your shares doubled due to 2:1 split. Today your share is worth 27 dollars, except you have twice as many...

Are you saying that the 27 dollars per share in 2001 is already adjusted down for the splits that happened? I really doubt this is how they would keep track of historical share prices... but if there is evidence to prove this, I will not argue.

I was just referring to disolitudes figures. All I'm trying to tell him is that when a stock splits, it's half the price, not the same.

Jesus Christ dude, NO.

That is how they track historical pricing. Look up "split-adjusted". That is why at the bottom of the reports you're looking at, it says "split-adjusted".

If you KNEW what you were talking about, there wouldn't be a problem, but you don't so stop trying to correct people.