RE:ConsolidationShark. Personally, I am not arguing about a roll-back, but about a 1 for 100 roll-back
Unfortunately I couldn't get to the AGM, but I don't think that the fact that shereholders, in a very low visibility stock, many of whom (like yourself apparently) are substantially "underwater", did not vote for or against the resolution concerned, is necessarily and argument that a 1 for 100 roll-back is right or the best thing for shareholders generally.
My main wish is that I could understand why 1 for 100 is right. So, one ends up with around a 1.2 million share float down from 120 million - which, at current market price - should settle out at a price of $9.00 per share. Why is that an advantage over a 1 for 25 or even 1 for 50 roll up? Why is 1 for 100 so important? What are the arguments that support it?
Are there investors who will only invest in stocks at around around $9?
As regards liquidity, I would have thought a 1 to 100 resulting price would hit it very hard on the head. There is little liquidity at the moment because the share price is underwater for (probably) hundreds of shareholders, and the Company is only just raising its visibility (thanks to some excellent NRs lately - and long may they continue!) At $9.00 and a total float of 1.2 million, why should it increase? I must be missing something.