One fact concerns me more than any other. The report on the call was mostly positive and (long term) reassuring though I worry about the short term (6 to 8 months). My concern is that in April there were 44m shares outstanding at a price of 2.58. In those exuberant days the price continued to climb through July to a high of 2.78 but then quickly began this rather steady decline. By that time there were 65m shares. Today there are 71m. It seems to me that 44m at 2.58, with no real income booked since could easily command a price nearly half that of almost twice the number of shares outstanding. That is essentially a nearly 2 for one stock split, which is used to reduce shares and increase price. Could it be that that fact alone could explain why the price could be driven down? The concern that I began this with is that during the call Yates mentioned the presence of an arrow in his quiver of a stock split to up the per share value to get on the NASDAQ. To me he was saying, without saying it, that when they can get the price up to 2.00 to 2.50 we will see a reverse split to get to the 3.00 to 4.00 needed to qualify. That means that the price will eventually have to go twice as high to get the same return possible, or hoped for when the shares were at the reverse split level several months ago. I have been a holder for 4 years or more now, well before yogurt, so have been among the optimistic faithful but I hate the use of reverse splits. Am I over analyzing, or just outright wrong in this worry about his comments?
