Stock split is good for share price?

According to one of Bloomberg news:
Buffett said in a letter to shareholders in 1983 that to reduce price fluctuations, Berkshire wouldn't split its stock. Investors should be ``focused on business results, not market prices,'' he wrote.

In theory, stock split offers no real benefits. The company management is the same, earning per share is the same, ROE is the same. The only thing changed is you get more shares for the same percentage of stock holding. However, a split would incur additional expenses that is actually not good for the business.

But, does this theory applies to Singapore market? Look at this

According to Reuters news:
Shares of Jiutian Chemical Group rose as much as 12.6 percent to S$0.68 with 13.6 million shares traded after a 5-for-1 stock split.

"The stock has become cheaper and much easier to enter," said a local dealer. Jiutian shares were trading at around S$3 on Tuesday before the stock split.

Obviously, the reality is different from what we perceived it to be. Market is driven by supply and demand. In the short term, as long as demand exceeds supply, the price would keep going up. Increase the number of share would facilitate some traders in trading the company share and this in turn, driving up the price. I can recall some of my friends said the stock is too expensive, no money to buy. A $2 dollar is expensive to them, compare to 0.20 stock. Even though, in PE terms, the $2 might be cheaper.

Having said that, a stock split does not guarantee the share price would go up in the long term. At the end of the day, fundamental still counts.