ij007, I RESPECTFULLY disagree.
You're asking me if I have a better answer to the 1/1000 R/S but I've explained it so many times I got reprimanded for repeating myself too much. Are you serious? I spelled it out many times because I figured if I was going to be judgemental then it only makes sense to lay out a better plan and explain why it would have been better. I think you were too busy diverting attention from what I was saying than to try to read it objectively, think about it, and then give your opinion. I'm not slamming you, dude, but that's all most of you guys do. You say I'm quick to criticize Whit but I think you guys are quick to just accept anything and everything he does as great....like he MUST know what he's doing and he's God. He's not and he's proven time and time again he does not know what he's doing when it comes to managing, negotiating, and communicating (verbal and written). I still have 3 days before August, right? :-D
But seriously, why NOT question things? If he had a proven track record that's one thing but he doesn't. He's still struggling a lot and has failed miserably on past projections. His own projections. I could give example after example but I've already done that and everyone is getting sick of me repeating myself.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a sub-$1 stock on the OTC with 32M shares outstanding (1 for 100 R/S). ITRO is a micro-cap company. It makes ZERO sense to reduce the O/S to 3.2M just to get a pps over a dollar. I understand the need to get the pps up to attract investment but there are limitations as to how advantageous it is. If not then why not do a 1 for 10,000 and make it a $19 stock with 320k outstanding or hell, do a 1 for 100,000 and make it a $190 stock with 32k shares out? Bottomline, for the market capitalization of ITRO, there is no reason in the world to take the O/S all the way down to 3.2M. That's silly. Check out other micro-caps. Most have in the range of 50M to 200M shares outstanding. Anything under 50M, I consider to be low. Under 5M is retarded. Besides, at the end of the day investors are looking at market cap and liquidity and growth and debt, etc.. Reverse splits should always be done at the absolute minimum to accomplish the intended objectives and no more. They went way overboard here. Ask 100 real finance guys or CFOs and show them the old shares structure and ask them. I bet not a single one of them would agree with the 1 for 1000. Not one.
Btw, I've heard recently that the gameplan a few months ago was to promote the ferts/stage 1/Auric with PRs to rebuild investor confidence and get the pps up to around 003 and then do a 1 for 200. This would have put the new pps at 60 cents with about 16M shares outstanding. This would have been great!! WHY didn't he do it? I still think 1 for 100 (30 cent pps with 32M O/S) sounds better but I could live with a 1 for 200. 1 for 1000 I wanted to blow my brains out. Unfortunately for most of you guys I don't have a firearm. Too bad, I know.
Sorry for writing a book again.
Good Evening everyone.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
