Like Macy's (M) window displays or Beverly Hills' Rodeo Drive, the stock market is browsed by people looking to shop. Companies know this, and they use a few tricks (other than innovative products or stellar earnings) to help motivate us to buy their wares -- or, in this case, their shares.

One common (now almost clich ) example is to use a catchy ticker symbol, like those of Harley Davidson (HOG) or Sotheby's (BID) . Studies have demonstrated these symbols can have an impact on returns, at least over the short run. The "food fund" Dynamic Food & Beverage Portfolio (PBJ), with the memorable "PBJ" ticker we wrote about last summer, has since gained about 37%; one of its biggest components, Yum! Brand (YUM), which also has a clever ticker symbol, is up over 40%.

Another sales tactic is actually enabled and perpetuated by government regulation. Company officers and directors are required by the Securities and Exchange Commission to report when they buy and sell their company's stock, and that information is then disseminated to the public and reported on by news organizations, web sites and blogs dedicated to tracking "insider" trading.

That kind of reporting ends up being a very inexpensive and widely watched form of advertising -- and one that I'm bewildered more executives don't exploit.

Buying an advertisement in a publication like Barron's, or on web sites like Bloomberg or MarketWatch, isn't cheap, nor is hiring a public relations firm to drum up investor interest. Yet Thomas Galligan, Chairman of the Board of Town Sports International (CLUB), was able to garner a favorable mention in The Wall Street Journal for only $14,000 as one of the week's "biggest individual trades" of stock. Thomas Ferrara, who holds the same position at CMS Bancorp (CMSB), got the same good press for only $11,000.

The most effective trick by far is changing the stock price itself. Although it might sound counterintuitive, as we've pointed out before, a company can actually peg its stock price just about wherever it wants using stock splits.

While some amateur investors gravitate toward penny stocks, institutions tend to avoid them, so companies will use reverse splits to raise the absolute price, either for cosmetic purposes or to meet an exchange's listing requirements. In a one-for-ten split, for example, your 10 shares of stock at $5 would be replaced by one share of stock at $50. To some, the new price tag may seem more legitimate or reputable, but neither the company nor the value of your investment has changed.

The most obvious and current example is AIG (AIG), which trades at $49 today thanks only to a 20-for-1 reverse split conducted last summer. Without the split, the stock would trade at $2.55 today, even after its 65% rise year-to-date. The all-time high would still sit near $100, not $2,000 as it does now.

The "Real" AIG (without July 2009 1:20 split)

You can't help but feel a little safer buying a $16 stock than a $1.60 stock, which is where E*Trade Financial (ETFC) would be trading today if not for June's 1-for-10 reverse split. The all-time high reached in 1999 would have remained near $70, instead of $700 now.

The "Real" E*Trade (without June 2010 1:10 split)

Even stronger stocks have played this game. Priceline.com (PCLN) trades at a decade-high price of $419, but that's thanks only to a June 2003 1-for-6 reverse split, without which the shares would sit near $70. If not for that cosmetic change, the all-time high of the late 1990s would be near $160. Today it's nearly $1,000.

The "Real" Priceline (without June 2003 1:6 split)

Reverse splits are completely cosmetic. Nothing fundamentally changes within a company, which is why three of the Japanese financial stocks I've been buying recently might consider undergoing their own reverse splits. Higher prices could help persuade skeptical American investors to consider their shares. Based on looks alone, these are stocks that are priced way too low, given their size and regional dominance.

For example, Mitsubishi UFJ (MTU), which is traded on the New York Stock Exchange for a measly $4.98, seems more like a penny stock, despite its $70 billion market cap, simply because it's so low-priced. Despite recent strength in global financials, there's been a palpable absence of public interest, and a 1-for-10 reverse split would likely draw much more attention and domestic legitimacy to its shares.

Mitsubishi UFJ (with a hypothetical 1:10 split)

The same goes for Mizuho Financial (MFG), a $35 billion market-cap bank that looks pretty puny trading at $3.34 on the New York Stock Exchange. A 1-for-10 reverse split would peg shares above $33 and likely alleviate some concerns of professional American investors, many of whom won't look at stocks below $5 a share.

Mizuho Financial (with a hypothetical 1:10 split)

Shares of Nomura Holdings (NMR) could also benefit from a touch of lipstick. The brokerage and financial services conglomerate with a $21 billion market cap trades near $6 a share, unlike peers like BlackRock (BLK) or Goldman Sachs (GS), both of which trade well above $100 a share. A 1-for-10 reverse split would boost Nomura (NMR) above $60, potentially bringing attention to a promising idea most U.S. investors don't know exists.

Nomura Holdings (with a hypothetical 1:10 split)

Sources for all charts: Bloomberg, Rosewood Research

Hoenig's fund held positions in many of the securities mentioned.