Great post Soros. I agree with you, Creede and I believe Crow3. The fact is that we are currently in pinky land and stock price is a function of supply of shares vs. demand for shares.
Supply of shares is basically the float so Bobwins is correct in the near term that retiring shares does not reflect tradable supply of shares.
Demand for shares is basically a function of perception. In that sense, anything that separates LBWR from the mass of pinkies and the reputation of pinksheets shares would be an extreme positive.
In pinkyland, niceties of PE ratios, financial multiples based on revenues, and other financial analyses are not as important as perception of credibility and shareholder friendliness. The example that most of us know is HISC. Many of us rode it for close to a 100 x gainer. IMO, it was a function of perception (which turned out to be false) that management was actually reducing the o/s, buying up the float and doing other things to appear shareholder friendly.
Why would management do this? Simple math can prove that giving up some shares resulting in a higher share price gives management an eventual outlet for their shares at a much higher share price.
BTW - HISC started its long tank when it was revealed over time that they really weren't doing that stuff but were just shuffling paper in many ways.
So - bottom line - if management decides to do what Creed has suggested, it creates a perception of being shareholder friendly, IMO, the most important aspect in pinky land. Long term, as they go to OTC BB, ratios will look better and more traditional analyses will look better with an o/s of say 80 million.
A reverse split is a killer so anyone who speaks to Dexter should clearly not be advocating that. In fact, a PR that no r/s will occur is often a positive in pinkyland.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
