RE:RE:RE:RE:NCIBIs this true about institutions? I've read it so many times with various thresholds bandied about such as $3, and $5. Now $10, but I've never seen actual evidence or heard it from a fund manager.
To me, it doesn't make sense. Why create a share price threshold? I can see a market cap threshold for funds wanting to stay away from microcaps and we know they have those thresholds in their mandate, but a share price threshold would seem to imply a misunderstanding of very basic finance math which seems unlikely for men and women tasked with managing hundreds of millions or billions of dollars.
A fund would avoid a good growth company with 1 billion shares because it has a share price of $1.95? Seems unlikely to me. I think the market cap is what really matters.
GingerEnergy111 wrote: There's a point here and it's also relative to the actual price. Many institutional investors don't look at sub $10/share companies, or so it has been said.
A 2:1 reverse split for BTE would benefit by leaving an above $10/share price.
Moe is right however, that generally speaking, when stocks split into two, they drop the price, make it open to more investors and generally go up. The reverse is true that when stocks consolidate it's often following a bad trend down and once consolidated to support a decent price, they can continue to decline and often do - since not much has changed.
So yes, business IS important but there is a decent arguement for a 2:1 consolidation (reverse split.)