I have to somewhat disagree with you. There are many who probably will "stick it out" even if it returns to .04 or .05 or even higher. I have detailed many of my buys and sells and have the luxury of a nice remaining block of shares even after cashing out with huge gains. (Admittedly, I allowed the psychological "crutch" of big gains to counter my own common sense in analyzing management moves since .144). Having been an activist shareholder, which has entailed many discussions with IR's and CEO's over the years, I sense that the mindset at this point is that they have given up trying to foster a strong shareholder base. This often is "contagious" as shareholders go from being overly optimistic to being pessimistic. IR outfits like Apple often reach the end of the easy street monthly dump of shares and tell the CEO that they need to go the r/s route and sort of "start again." They have the ear of the CEO and have a conflict of interest as the monthly payment gets harder and harder to justify. I'm not saying this is happening but it's a sense that I have.
I'm not a basher and not going to beat a dead horse. So, I wlll not argue this point or repeat it as bashers typically do. I previously posted a fairly detailed strategy that I often suggest to CEO's and to those who call and speak with them. In essence, the company needs to be convinced that they can still make money with the shareholders, that they can create and enhance a "win-win" situation. I don't believe that they get this "spiel" from IR. They only get it from vocal shareholders and this is not easy to do.
They need to start with a reversal of greed, a reduction in share count, a buy-back by insiders of the float. They know all this as this is what started the 100 bagger move. They know how to do it. It basically means that they give up something now to establish trust and the "creation of value" in shareholders. This feeds on itself and the net result is "win-win" for shareholders and management.
For those who don't believe me, go back to the beginning of the major run in HISC. You will see well-timed PR's that did exactly as I advocated in this and prior posts here. The optimism created a huge wave of buying as posters highlighted this stock as one of the rare gems that fostered shareholder value as opposed to the typical pink penny that tends to be a dilution and dumping machine.
OTOH, if they continue on the current road to the typical dilute and reverse route, they will have a hard time getting support from shareholders in the future as outfits like Apple are starting to be discovered for what they really are and the inherent conflicts of interest in these type of arrangements. (Note I have no specific knowledge of Apple, its plan and this post is purely my own speculation and opinion. They may, in fact, be the most honorable and shareholder friendly IR on the planet.)
Just my opinion and don't mean to be negative and, again, I hope not to have to argue the negative. This post is put here with the hope that others will run with some of the suggestions I made and counter what the typical IR preaches to the CEO.
I also am not posting my opinion of the suggested merger or acquistion other than that the "creation of value" requires management and insiders to give up something if they wish to have a strong shareholder base in the future.
For a recent company that realized it had to do this, I referred in a prior post to TDYH, which currently has a buyout in process where management and insiders actually get less than the public shareholders. As they are not charitable foundations, they had a reason to do this and I do believe that it is, inter alia, to create a "win-win" scenario and also possibly to hide that the deal left some significant assets on the table for the future entity.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
