Radical? That would be an understatement imo. They are recommending a 1:200 reverse split. The latest share count I have seen is about 220 million outstanding as of December but could be higher by now (which is up significantly from 160 million not too long ago thanks to the convertible financing). I was thinking a1:10 or 1:20 which would result in 10 or 20 million outstanding with plenty of room for normal equity fund raising. But this "radical" plan would result in 1 million shares outstanding which is ridiculously low and says to me that the toxic convertible debt is far from over and/or there are a lot more than 200 million o/s.
Most companies I have watched that were in a toxic debt mess like this follow the same game plan. Dilute, reverse split, more toxic debt, more dilution, and the share price finds its way back down to where the initial r/s occurred. So dcfc after a 1:200 would result in a share price of $20 and room to issue another 200 million shares or more to get right back to where it is today unless the business starts generating positive cash flow. I could be wrong about this, and the March 7 report could show a big operational turnaround. But if that's the case, why would a "radical" 1:200 stock restructuring be necessary? Me? I'm out but will keep watching.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
