Replies to post #85697 on Niocorp Developments Ltd (NB)

[NEgoodlife]

Well stated and true. Thanks Grunt. Have a great Friday!

[jeunke22]

Grunt, apart from a handful of messengers, most here have understood that. Been long enough in Biotech to understand how reverse spits can turn nasty and negative for pre revenue companies. This however is completely different: it opens new opportunities for vast number of institutions and index funds and the new Nasdaq entity will do that with a very solid business case, a very experienced management team and more than 300 million in cash. It’s not going to be better than this IMO! Love it and I am very happy!!! STILL.

[bigal9999]

In my opinion, the problem isn't mathematical, it's psychological. If I have 100 shares at $100 and there is a 2:1 split, I now have 200 shares at $50. But the perception is "when I looked at this yesterday it was $100 and today it's $50. That's a deal and I better buy some more shares". Assuming there are more buyers than sellers, the price goes up.

In the case of reverse split it's the opposite. If I have 1000 shares at $1, and there is a 1:10 reverse split, I now have 100 shares at $10. The perception is "when I looked yesterday this was $1 and today it's $10. I better take some profit while I can and sell some". If there are more sellers than buyers, the price goes down, and potential buyers hold off to try to find the bottom, so the price keeps dropping.

Although we are all rational and logical and know the market cap has not changed in either of the cases, the psychology still plays a part in how it unfolds. This is why I generally don't like reverse splits, but if it understood that the reverse split will bring in more buyers, this should more than offset the psychology of the second scenario above, and let the price move as it should without the price drop often seen with reverse splits.

All in my opinion. Not giving financial advise or recommendations. Do your own DD.

Big Al

[SpecialK2020]

Let me first say that I support this SPAC deal and will be voting for it, as I have stated previously. It seems to be our only option and I'd like to see this mine be successful rather than a failure. I believe Mark Smith chose this deal because it was the best available and allowed the project to move forward without potential bankruptcy or a sale that was detrimental to shareholders.

With that said, I'm also very tired of seeing the justification and positivity around a reverse split. The ONLY positives coming from the RS is it can artificially meet the requirement of price for an uplist and it reduces shares outstanding. I think everyone gets that a RS does not decrease any shareholder value right after the initial action, and we can stop beating that dead horse, but it is completely disingenuous to say it is not harmful in any way to shareholder value.

To your example, yes, 10,000 shares at $1 will have the same value as 1,000 at $10. What people seem to ignore is that a move from $1-$2 at 10,000 shares would have to be equaled by a $10 jump on the other side to maintain the same gain. And despite what some folks say here about institutions not caring about price per share, they do, and $10 gains are harder to come by than $1.

I can find you far more examples of stocks dipping right after a RS, or not rising by proportionate amounts, than stocks that moved up by $10 increments.

Also, market cap matters and it is judged accordingly, but it is not the only thing that counts in a market that is very much behavior driven.

I don't like people continuing to whine about the RS, either. The GXIIW warrants can help hedge against the concern about the RS, and you are either OK with this SPAC deal and support it, or you are OK with this company having to sell or go bankrupt, because that seems to be the other option. This truly is a support or sell situation. We don't have the time or cash to continue on without it and Mark wouldn't have done this deal if that weren't the case.

Just my two cents.