Worth pointing out, too, that a common mantra here in relation to the numbers in a distribution is a total fallacy, at least in regard to the impact on shorts.
What is the impact if SRSR uses a ratio of 1 for 35 in allocating shares of the new companies in a distribution... 1 new share for 35 SRSR shares held... relative to some other number ?
If they used 1 for 7 instead... or 1 for 175... (factors of 5, either way) what would be the impact... on those who were short ?
My opinion is, the smaller the ratio, and the larger the number of new shares, the easier it may be for the shorts to manage it... and the larger the ratio, and the smaller the number of new shares, the harder it may be for the persistent shorts to manage it.
If they use the minimum practical number of new shares in the distribution, still trying hard to avoid hosing over people with the issues in the fractional share problem... and plan to do a forward split later, to make more liquidity available for trading, which is more practical.... that is what will most seriously screw the shorts.
That's another reason why more transparency is really required... because not knowing what the short position is, imposes problems in dealing with other issues like that... making it harder to manage to allocate imposed costs most properly.
I'd want them to try to target a number in the distribution that manages the two problems in integrated fashion, not separately... minimizing the need for other gyrations, like a future forward split, while navigating a middle course between the problem with uncovered shorts and the fractional share problem... in a way that maximizes shareholder value, generally. Can't really do that very well without knowing what the short positions are.
So, screw them... and bite the bullet on the costs in the extra gyrations.
Bias things towards generating more benefits for smaller holders at shorts expense, by planning on rounding up smaller holdings that would generate fractional shares to one new share, while minimizing the total number of shares... targeting a number as best you can that will most work to impose the most cost at the expense of the expected short holders, as best that can be determined ? Then, do a forward split later ?
I won't complain if that happens... as it seems a practical solution to fixing the issue with the problem of the uncertainty, even if at some known fixed cost that will be somewhat larger, and even if it means taking some risk in favor of a known larger cost.
If you're lucky, in doing that, and there is a large short position out there, the benefit for shareholders will be in large multiples...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
