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.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Tech Squared (TSQD)- Internet Commerce -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Quad Sevens who wrote (659)	7/17/1998 10:04:00 PM
From: Terp	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2752

We need to clarify something here. A 2 for 3 reverse split implies a 3 for 2 stock split, meaning more shares. A 3 for 2 reverse split means they would be reducing the amount of shares. If the filing reads a 2 for 3 reverse split, why don't they just write it in english and call it a 3 for 2 stock split? That's what it really is, isn't it?

To: Quad Sevens who wrote (659)	7/17/1998 10:07:00 PM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2752

Took the words right from my mouth... I just scrapped the post I was writing thanks to your well thought out but impulsive posting <g>. Yes, we have to redo the math. Normally, with a reverse split, you really don't lose capital. The problem here is that DRIV has no market price yet, so on the face of it, it looks like bad news. But if the reduced share count leads to a perception of a smaller float, then DRIV would go higher than it normally would have, and we are right back into a rosy investment scenario. Yes, the $12 price is ridiculous. But they filed that before the BCST IPO <g>. When I read the S-1 last June, I mentioned the sentence "There may be a ___ for ____ reverse split." I noted this, but somebody said that this was standard boilerplate. I thought that was odd boilerplate, but I didn't follow your advice to always quesiton any categorical statement. And now it turns out my instincts were right. I've got an idea. Why doesn't TSQD itself do a 2 for 3 reverse split. Then we would be back where we started from! DocStone