Flexpoint Sensor Systems, Inc. (FLXT)

[chinzel1]

Here's a nice read on the success rates of reverse stock splits (RVS):

https://seekingalpha.com/article/3773746-impact-reverse-stock-split

My personal experience with RVS has been very dismal. If you google you can find many stories that discuss the pros & cons of RVS. However, i haven't found 1 that even mentions companies asking shareholders to vote on a RVS & increasing the number of authorized outstanding shares in the same proxy. Unfortunately, it happens often with companies that have lost much of their share value. FLXT is down more than 88% from it's 2008 issue price of $0.45. Asking shareholders to vote on 1 aforementioned issue for a stock that has dropped so much is usually a very poor sign, but voting on both of the aforementioned usually proves especially ugly for shareholders. When the proxy voting is successful companies always do the RVS 1st; then issue more shares resulting in a great magnification of shareholder dilution (see my prior post for exact numbers specific to FLXT).


They're are additional caveats that are rarely discussed including:

1 Current shareholders are usually not allowed to partial conversions. For example, in a 50 for 1 RVS, if a shareholder owns 1049 shares the shareholders are left with 20 shares not 20.9 or 21 shares unless rounding is allowed which is often not the case. That's money lost!;

2 - Sometimes there are fees for the conversions as well;

3 - The RVS results in a stock ticker change. This is known as a name change and consolidation (i.e. using a different ticker symbol for the new shares (Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_stock_split); &

4 - There are sites where you can research the stock split history of a stock. Flexpoint hasn't traded under a toicker other than FLXT since 2008. However, Flexpoint has been around much longer than 2008. I 1st traded it in 1997. Following is their SEC filing explaining such. That hasn't worked out well. & FLXT is no about to mention it or remind you of it probably because they're not required to since it was technically a different company.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/925660/000102317505000152/0001023175-05-000152.txt


They've held on, & they're making good strides without a RVS. Let them continue to work for their successes & yours by voting "NO" on both of the aforementioned.