Replies to post #4130 on David Lazar's OTC SPAC's/CUSTODIAN Plays

[lumpy9200]

I dont disagree with you at all. I was just saying that previously (or so I thought), companies that reverse merge into a stock with a great share structure didn't reverse split that often. It seemed to me that if the A/S was high and the O/S was low, they could simply make more outstanding shares and have the control they desire (or give shares for financing, etc). I know that the new company doesnt care at all about legacy shareholders, but I thought they cared a little bit about the recent shareholders that only bought in when the custodian got involved. Either way, it still stands in my opinion that if share structure doesnt matter and reverse splits are going to be more and more common, then early shareholders will have to start selling at lower profit points, sell more shares than they would have 1 or 2 years ago, and therefore put a serious dent in the kind of rallies we see with huge runners. Everyone loves profit taking to the point where you only have "freebies" left to go up as high as the stock will go. But if reverse splits are becoming much more common than they were 2 years ago, it doesnt even pay to keep the same amount of freebies in for the ride. Lost money is lost money. So I agree with every word you're saying, but are reverse splits becoming more common than they were 2 years ago? If yes, I think stocks won't run as hard anymore. Just a possibility, nothing more.....

[wingtrade]

R/S is not the only way to "control who has shares". There are many ways to manage SS. Announcing a 1000:1 R/S after announcing new management via otcmarkets and SOS filings is just not right. Investors will not continue to give the 'benefit of the doubt' to these tickers if this is the way they choose to do business.