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.

Technology Stocks : NewKidCo International (OTC:NKCIF) (TSE:NKC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: esecurities(tm) who wrote (1554)	5/4/1998 2:57:00 PM
From: esecurities(tm)	Respond to of 4231

Delisting over reverse stock-split, every time. If management has confidence in their ability to create shareholder value why would they even consider a reverse stock-split?...simply allow the [temporary] NASDAQ delisting [assuming that even happens given everything they have going]...and relist when ready and profitable whereupon the stock should move significantly higher with the same amount of shares and without resorting to financial legerdemaine...something stinks at SoftQuad...the [NASDAQ] tail wagging the [SWEBF] dog!? What is THAT all about?

To: esecurities(tm) who wrote (1554)	5/4/1998 2:58:00 PM
From: jim geis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4231

#1 I don't believe they are that stupid, and #2 if they are, then all that's been happening lately is the smoke screen that as has been previously suggested on this site, and #3 After a reverse split it will drop right back to $1.00 by June 30 anyway, so what will they gain?

To: esecurities(tm) who wrote (1554)	5/4/1998 8:19:00 PM
From: Andrew Furst	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4231

Esecurities, I feel your thorough research and insightful comments on SWEBF have been excellent. However, I have to disagree with your take on a possible reverse split. This is not merely gimmickry to make the stock "appear" to be successful by presenting a larger per-share price than would otherwise be the case. In this particular instance, it would be undertaken to ensure compliance with the new rules of Nasdaq. With these revised rules, SWEBF may be faced with the choice of accepting the new conditions for listing, and undergoing a reverse split - or ignoring them and allowing the stock to fall to the bulletin board, aka "pink sheets". I would prefer to see SWEBF retain its Nasdaq listing - even if it takes a reverse split to do so. There are many companies in the same boat as SWEBF, thanks to the new rules; all are considering a reverse split, and I see no other situations where this is considered an unworthy gimmick. Continued Nasdaq listing should give the company better exposure than on the pink sheets, as well as likely providing a more favorable bid/asked "spread" than the pinks. Also, some brokers do not deal at all in pink sheet (OTC:BB) stocks, while others charge a higher commission for them. For example, I mainly use Waterhouse online, and currently can trade up to 5,000 shares of SWEBF for a $12 commission, via the Internet. However, if SWEBF moves to the pink sheets, I'll have to call Waterhouse directly to trade it, and the commission would then be $45. As far as visibility, SWEBF quotations are currently listed in papers such as the Wall Street Journal or IBD alongside companies such as Microsoft or Dell. If it falls to the pink sheets, the company becomes invisible (as far as those daily quotations are concerned). This may reduce the pool of prospective investors, which could in turn reduce the share price or limit its upside potential. All in all, I'd love to see SWEBF move higher and not need the reverse split. But if it comes to that to retain the regular Nasdaq listing, I'll take a reverse split any time. As far as whether or not reverse split companies can prosper, I see no reason why they can't. Tosco (TOS) reverse split 1-5 about 10 years ago, and the stock has greatly moved up since then. And there have been other success stories following reverse splits, "Cold-Eeze" maker Quigley being a recent example. True, reverse splits are often a symptom of a sick company. On the other hand, refusal to reverse split does not of itself improve the company's health. quote.yahoo.com