The number of shares is independent of the assets assuming that there is no capital injection with the new shares e.g. investors subscribing to new shares directly or dividend reinvestment by investors.    However, the assets (liabilities) per share changes with the number of shares.    Some companies offer share buybacks often to maintain the price of the stock (share) on the sharemarket; this can affect the cash position hence assets of the company as the company has used its own money to buy the shares back.

A stock split, while resulting in an increased number of shares, should not affect the amount of shareholder's equity outstanding.

http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042215/do-stock-splits-and-stock-dividends-affect-stockholder-equity.asp

Thank you, Emmanuel, for your clear (and logical) answer to this question.  However, it made me ponder whether companies nonetheless call for a stock split when the per share market price rises above a certain level (say $45 per share) that might cause a middle-income investor like myself to steer away from the stock as being too expensive for her blood.  For instance, I bought Priceline stock when it was only $1 per share, purchasing 200 shares; but I would never re-enter the market to buy a single share of Priceline stock while it is selling at $117 per share (unless the purchase could be accomplished through a dividend reinvestment plan).  So, how much of a firm's decision about adjusting the price of its stock is based upon psychological appeal from the standpoint of the investor?

What I mean is, do you think decisions about stock splits (and reverse stock splits -- which I have experienced a couple of times and found extremely irritating) can be motivated by a firm's decision that the stock would be more attractive to the investor at a higher or lower per share price?

Gwen

The decision to split/reverse a stock is a function of several things.  First, what is the management trying to position the company to do? Second, how does the management personally benefit from the transaction?  Third, are the market conditions right to pull off such a transaction? Finally, is management dancing to the tune of the wall street crowd?

Thanks, Edward!  Is that last bit, tongue-in-cheek or are you venting a little anger?

Gwen