"Your service has been a game changer for me, and I wholeheartedly recommend TCS to anyone who invests.

"I have some questions regarding the supply of individual stocks and shares available for investment in the U.S. In the late 90's I recall at least 7000 companies were available for investment when you combined the NYSE, AMEX, and NASDAQ. I believe that total is now less than 6000 due to delisting, consolidation, and a paucity of new issuance. Meanwhile, total shares have been, in my mind, under pressure for that same reason as well as the fact that companies are buying back shares at a great rate. In your opinion does a scarcity of shares have an impact on prices overall, and can you account as to why we have not had any major stock split announcements despite the fact that many leading company shares trade over $100 (not to mention $600)?"

David Fuller's view Thank you for your kind words and recommendations. As you probably realize, Fullermoney neither advertises, nor accepts advertisements, and we do not have any sales reps. Most of our subscribers and delegates have joined because of subscribers' recommendations, and we thank all of you for your interest and support.

Regarding your interesting questions, many in the Collective will know more about this than I do but I have a few thoughts. Since share price moves are a function of supply and demand, I assume that any significant reduction in supply can only make it easier for shares to rise when demand for them does increase.

Inevitably, there are significant fashion trends in the investment world and I am delighted that analysts and companies are no longer saying that "dividends are an inefficient use of capital." I always felt that was a disingenuous, self-serving mantra. However, via buybacks companies can increase earnings per share and reduce the cost of increased dividend payments. This is a timely fashion change because investors are ill-served by current government bond yields in the OECD countries, unless one is willing to accept the risk of troubled European sovereign debt. I see no need to take that risk when we can buy high-yielding equities with strong balance sheets.

Low government bond yields have reduced the risk, often expressed by analysts over the last decade or more, that aging 'baby boomers' would sell their equities to buy "safer" (sic) government bonds. While government bond yields remain low the money flow is more likely to be the other way around, in my opinion, as I have said before.

I think there have been fewer new listings in the US and Europe because it is harder for companies to obtain financing in our current environment of slower economic growth and tougher bank regulation, including higher reserve requirements.

As for the decline in stock splits, I can only guess. While these were once favoured to attract more investors and create an illusory feel good factor, they presumably increased registrar costs. Interestingly, Google announced that it would split its share yesterday. As I understand it, they will now have three categories of shares: 1) A-shares, untraded, held by the founders and which have 10 proxy votes per share; 2) B-shares that anyone can hold and which carry 1 proxy vote per share; 3) C-shares, which are new and have no proxy vote. Google's founders are ensuring that they have firm control over the company.

Lastly, I missed this email above when it came in last week and apologised to the subscriber when it was resent. He replied:

"No worries. One of the strengths of your service is how the degree of personalization makes me feel as though I am a member of a very small group when that is not exactly the case."

I am glad you feel that way. Eoin and I believe that we all learn from an interactive service that discusses items of general interest. It is part of our Empowerment Through Knowledge theme. We know that subscribers empower us with their questions, comments, articles and reports, and we hope to empower subscribers with this service.