RE:Reverse split not always bad Eventually the only thing that matters is the state of the company. The share count is a meaningless number used as a denominator for many ratios or statistics. That's it, that's all. Example, it's very normal in UK and Aussie market to have huge share count and low price per share. Somehow it became popular to have a huge stock price with a lower share count in the USA. Somehow, sometime, for whatever illogical reason other than it's "convention" a stock price of $1000,$2000 etc is the norm and a stock split was laughed at as stupid old school. Now a few stock splits are sneaking back so retail schmucks can buy board lots or at least an even number. Encana did a roll up in the midst of moving to the USA and changing their name to ovintiv. Stock was immediately hammered down to the pre roll up share price or close to it. I don't recall the exact numbers, but it sure followed the typical path predicted by everyone opposed to a r/s. But then oil prices turned up. Way up. And poof! Blew through the roll up price and just kept doubling. Thereby illustrative of my premise. The share count is meaningless and won't have any impact beyond something transitory and short term.
Jassy404 wrote: The reverse split is not always bad, especially if they are considering listing on Nasdaq. Yes, it can lead to dilution, but not always. I saw companies doing the reverse split as they wanted to list on Nasdaq, some went through short term dilution but in the end, the stock price moved much higher.
Although I did not find any mention of the Nasdaq listing in the notice of the annual general meeting that they plan to hold on May 26 posted on Sedar, but I sincerely hope that they think about it. We’ll have the opportunity to ask and vote on this.