Replies to post #296 on Park & Halpern (P&H)

[Churak]

I have mixed feelings about reverse splits. I hate them & then I REALLY hate them. I have yet to see an OTC BB company do a reverse split where the shareholders are better off after the r\s. IMHO, r\s are a vehicle for incompetent management to artificially inflate the share price for a nano second. Then the price crashes, usually back to the pre-split level. Why is management so interested in raising the price of their stock price artificially? Why can't they run their business, generating sales & profits & the share price will react accordingly. I think a good project for Ian would be to take all the BB companies that have r\s'd in the last 2 years and compare the pre split price to that now AND what the outstanding shares were then & now. These companies invariably start issuing shares again & again such that the o\s is again at a precarious level.

I would suggest to you that r\s be outlawed for all BB companies. Period...full stop.

[SSP]

I dislike reverse splits, they represent lack of care, responsibility to current shareholders and usually they follow up with S8 or other forms of dilution. There should be rules implemented - for one, a company shouldn't be allowed to issue any new shares of any form for a period of no less than 1 year after a R/S has been executed. Shells do it for ownership ratios, but when a shell does the R/S Merger/Acquisition Share dilution song and dance repeatedly, well that shell should be dealt with by the proper authorities, as no real effort is made to create a public sound company. Heck I've even seen shells reverse merge into private companies that just incorporated. All as a vehicle to announce a Letter Of Intent (None Binding) to play out a means to sell stock on the "New business" direction of the shell, which usually is coincidently in the business of the newest market issues. A deceptive cycle played out by many otc shells over and over again, reverse splitting , changing names, enough times to conceal itself as a respectful new entity.

Here's an example of excessive use of R/S and name change:

VIGC-> SVMD-> VGNV-> NTCG-> RRXG

 
 NAME/SYMBOL CHANGES    
 DL DATE   DATE OLD SYMBOL/NAME NEW SYMBOL/NAME  
 07/28/2000  07/31/2000  VIGC**  Voyager Internet Group.com  SVMD  Save On Meds.Net   
  
  
 NAME/SYMBOL CHANGES    
 DL DATE   DATE OLD SYMBOL/NAME NEW SYMBOL/NAME  
 05/30/2001  05/31/2001  SVMD**  Save on Meds.Net  VGNV  Voyager Group Inc NV (1-100 R/S)   
  
  
 NAME/SYMBOL CHANGES    
 DL DATE   DATE OLD SYMBOL/NAME NEW SYMBOL/NAME  
 06/14/2002  06/17/2002  VGNV**  Voyager Group Inc (Nevada)  NTCG  Neoteric Group Inc (1-100,000 R/S)   
  
  
 NAME/SYMBOL CHANGES    
 DL DATE   DATE OLD SYMBOL/NAME NEW SYMBOL/NAME  
 08/09/2002  08/12/2002  NTCG**  Neoteric Group Inc  RRXG  R & RX Group Inc (1-200 R/S)  
 

That's equivalent to 1-2,000,000,000 reverse split - sick!

And of course there's all the S8 and share dilution in effect after the reverse splits/name changes.

There's many I can list:
MSMJ
ITRD
ETTC
MTND
etc

The good ones are a rare entity, but there's some out there, that will do a modest r/s 1-5 say, only because they need to hand over the ownership of at least 80% to the private company. If they can accomplish a reverse merger without squeezing out the current shareholders, or diluting them out with the issuance of excessive new paper, then they deserve a look.