Balata, your math is correct. And your instinct is right: There's nothing wrong with a r/s. There is an amatuer investor myth that r/s are bad because 'it makes the share price fall.' That's bullsh-t, or more scientifically, that's 'selection bias.' Let me explain:
When a company is in trouble and its stock falls below a certain level ($4 for Nasdaq), it can be de-listed. An r/s will bring the stock price back up above $4. But that company will probably still be having business trouble and the stock will, naturally, resume its descent. So a lot of dummies conclude that a r/s makes a stock price fall. That's not true. It's just that most companies that do a r/s are companies in trouble, simple as that. The myth is driven by what economists and statisticians call selection bias. Saying 'R/S are bad because troubled companies do it' is like saying 'Hospitals are bad, because people die there.'
Just like hospitals are not bad, neither are reverse splits. In fact, for a healhy growing company who has a ridiculously high sharecount, like QBID, a r/s is just what the doctor ordered. (How clever.) It reduces the sharecount and gets the share price up to a level where it can be listed.
It must be done right, however. ALL shares must be subjected to the same r/s ratio. It cannot be used in a manner that dilutes some shareholders to the benefit of others. Example, Frank's shares must be r/s at the same ratio as our common shares' ratio.
Hope that helped. 'R/S are bad' is one of the sillier myths out there.
AI
