Replies to post #134993 on Bioelectronics Corp (BIEL)

[JustGoDeep]

WRONG Again. It makes No difference.

Please take the time to print off my post #134974

and take it to an accountant for explanation.

Debating a feeling instead of the facts is worthless.

Percentage is percentage is percentage.

Example using $ 80 Million Market Cap

20 Billion shares outstanding X $.004 = $80 Million Market Cap

You own say 20 million shares divided by 20 Billion = .001% ownership

You have 20 million times $.004 = $80,000 worth of stock.

Reverse split 1000/1 from 20 Billion to 20 million shares outstanding and you now own 20,000 shares.

20,000 shares divide by 20 million shares outstanding = .001% ownership.

After reverse split you now have 20,000 shares at $4.00 --- 20,000 x $4.00 = $80,000

Market Cap: say it doubles to $160 Million.

$160 Million Market Cap divided by 20 Billion shares outstanding = $.008 X 20 million shares = $160,000

$160 Million Market Cap divided by 20 million shares = $8.00 X your 20,000 shares = $160,000

Each scenario above would double in value.

In either case you will have $160,000 worth of stock.

The increase is linear in ANY example.

Get it Now??

Biel Emerging!!

[Merrimoose]

I agree completely, Lantern.

It's about the potential of the volume of shares.

The initial effect might seem to maintain the value, but the fact is if you hold 100x less shares, it could be disastrous and crush any fantasy of holding a pile of shares in the millions and having the pps rise significantly while doing so.

10,000 shares at 0.1 may have the same value but doesn't have the same potential as 1,000,000 shares at .001.

At some point, an R/S has to happen. At what ratio, we can only guess at presently. What we have to hope is that it happens after the rise we're looking for.

[Daytime_Lantern]

Sorry, made correction in bold red below... I'm with you on the potential of BIEL's staggering future success. Now, regarding the effects of a RS, yes, I understand that as well. Thus, A reverse stock split reduces the number of shares and increases the share price proportionately. A higher share price is usually good, but the increase that comes from a reverse split is mostly an accounting exercise. Granted! But my point was, in response to an earlier post, thus, if one owns a 100/1 ratio less stocks after a RS , then that's not a good thing. For instance, if the stock price in question is in an upward trajectory, the only way that shareholder could recover the proportionate value of lost shares is as follows: The future, PPS gains of each share would have to increase in intervals of the ratio of the RS in the other direction. Does that make sense folks? Maybe "The Lantern" is all wet today with that analogy. Well, I tried!

GLTA!!!

Go! Go! Go! BIEL!!!