You and the market are doing what's called a heuristic shorthand.
The fact is, what I said is the real truth. It's math. Innumeracy is hard, but it's the reality.
The fact is, it's the reason behind the r/s just like it's the reasoning behind dilution, that determines if a company is creating value in the long-run or not.
You can't attract new investors easily if you're not on a major exchange.
The kind of research you're discussing, and I realize there are those who try to justify their positions as faculty by doing useless research, and publishing it, is extremely superficial and attempts to statistically connect broad notions with other broad notions and results in specious conclusions, like AF's extremely unfocused, broad and very dated research on small biotech companies always failing, which he uses as a justification for just about every specious argument he makes every day.
Let me first say, it is typical short tactic to raise the specter of a reverse split, when it's not currently in the air, to prevent stock appreciation and actually to CAUSE the event that they are supposedly afraid of... so I generally disapprove of such discussions and try to avoid them. But innumeracy really drives me nuts.
Let me further explain my previous post, for those who are fooled by shorthand analysis and don't go further to understand why the reverse split, by itself is not the real fundamental reason for any company having problems. Usually, it's other circumstances, and the potential for further dilution, and the every investor, in a company like this one, at an early stage, will experience ongoing dilution. Investors must recognize that in some circumstances, dilution is a given and they need to have a strategy for dealing with that issue, and if they don't, then they should not be in that asset.
------------
Let's think about the simple analysis that anti r/s posters usually promote. Now I have many fewer shares, and if the company's stock price reaches x dollars, I won't make as much. That's stock investor mumbo jumbo and shows a complete lack of understanding of how companies achieve value and what the stock price reflects.
Stock price is only a reflection of MARKET CAPITALIZATION. Market Cap is derived by the stock price times the number of shares mathematically, but the reality is that market cap is typically, actually, produced by the market's understanding of a company, its revenue, potential revenues and prospects in the future. Basically, Market Cap is what the market is saying the buyout value is on any given day.
When you see people taking a very rough estimate of, say the potential value of a new baseline treatment for GBM or solid tumors generally, and then adding in a multiple, that's how people determine what might be a fair value for the Market Cap, though often buyers pay a premium, even on that price, because it is often believed that the market cap is not going to reach the full valuation, though sometimes a company can also be grossly over valued. Markets are not efficient and they do make mistakes.
Now, think about the typical argument that if you have fewer shares, after a reverse split, you're going to be poorer if the company is successful.
Think about it.
If a company could just increase it's valuation by printing shares, everyone would just do that... we know that doesn't work and the number of shares doesn't cause valuation to rise, fundamentally. What does do that is the potential for real revenues and how much and how sustainable those revenues could be, going forward.
Therefore, what matters is only what percentage you own of that future revenue stream, and that is a function, at the simplest level of description, of
(Number of shares you own) ÷ (Total Issued and Outstanding Shares) = % of company that you own
when you forward split or reverse split, you're just changing how to express that fraction. It's a different mathematical expression, that is the same in all cases.
We all know that 2/10 = 20/100 = 200/1000 are all equal fractions. They all equal 20%. If those were cap tables showing my above calculation of the percentage you owned, you'd own 20% of the company in each case. Therefore, whatever the value of the company was, the stock price would reflect that 20% ownership. Printing more shares won't increase the value of the company, unless the money goes to new products or creating new revenue streams. Remember, if just printing shares created value, there would be something incredibly wrong with the markets, and you'd probably be best staying out of them.
The challenge is when you're in a start-up. That's why private equity investors usually get non-dilution clauses. That doesn't mean they can prevent the start-up from raising money, or issuing more shares, but that they will get the anti-dilution protection. Unfortunately, in publicly traded biotechs, we retail investors don't have a means to get that kind of protection, so dilution is painful unless you keep buying more shares at each lower price offering, to maintain one's original percentage of ownership. The burden is on the investor to maintain the percentage ownership.
But, in fact, the real issue is always, dilution and the lowering of one's percentage of ownership, not the reverse split or forward split. However, the innumeracy that is rampant in the investor community does often compound the notions of reverse splits and forward spits with the surrounding circumstances around those companies at those times and so the notion has often been a shorthand reference to a company in a given state. It takes more to analyze what the reality is and will be for any company adjusting its capitalization table. It's not necessarily bad or good and there are no easy shorthand notions, in reality. People like to think there are, and investors behave as though there are such things, which is probably good, in the long-run, for more patient and thoughtful investors.
Whether or not NWBO does a r/s, it's not currently an issue. The discussion here is just hot air and noise, so I'm taking the opportunity to counter some of the disinformation on the matter. Many people spread it just because they are reasonably scared of reverse splits from all that they read. Shorts love to spread that fear, and the fact is, whenever it's being considered, it's a reasonable time to consider the totality of the circumstances around a company and determine if that investment is for you. But the reverse split, if it is used to uplist, is usually a sign of improving the investment opportunity by increasing the total number of dollars that can come into a company and raise the valuation to a fairer measure. Small investors are great, but there is a very small universe of investors who buy large quantities of OTC stocks like this one. Their total capital is a pimple on the ass of a very great universe of investors, who won't look at that stock while its on the OTC and sub $5.00.
So, with success, you'd expect any major company may very likely choose to uplist somewhere. Hard to know if that will happen here, but the available investor dollars will increase exponentially if they are on a better exchange, with those dollars chasing after these shares. The reality is though, even so, with many very exciting biotech opportunities, the volume of daily trading, even when they are on a major exchange, is pretty low, until they have real revenues and success. Any hindrance to reaching that greater amount of trading, will suppress the price, in my view. But uplisting is no guarantee of success, nor that larger, institutional investors will be interested. Look at the totality of circumstances and always understand that investments in microcap biotechs is very risky and there is always a potential for total loss.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
