Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (97631)	10/5/2002 2:11:04 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Joan, Does anyone on this thread understand why the management of these companies that have cracked $10 a share do not reverse split the stocks. ... It would be taken as a lack of confidence, as well as an impediment for bargain hunters who might bite on the stock in single digits, but not at 20. If management thought that the stock had become severely undervalued, they would be buying back stock for the company and buying personal shares as well, not reverse splitting. Regards, Don

To: Joan Osland Graffius who wrote (97631)	10/7/2002 9:18:58 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Joan, A reverse split is usually considered a sign of pending bankruptcy, so cos. are loath to use it. Besides, having lots of mutual fund ownership has not helped them so far. It means that if these dopes can't own it due to price (and my own firm puts those silly limits on us, too. I need an act of Congress to buy anything under $5), once it starts to run, assuming it ever goes up again, the funds will pile on at the higher price. In general, the funds with that restriction can hold the shares. They just can't buy new shares of a stock under a certain price.