I have never quite understood the negative sentiment surrounding reverse splits, call me naive but I still have yet to see a cogent explanation as to how an R/S by itself is always a bad thing for shareholders. Taken alone, an R/S is a non-event, it is merely an accounting of the shares in a different way. The share price is adjusted up to reflect the smaller pool of shares but all of the proportions of stakes in the outstanding shares remain exactly the same. Of course we all understand that in the history of stinky pink stock stories, the typical toxic debt spiral can slip away from management and shareholders see dilution and more dilution followed by an R/S, and then followed by more dilution, rinse/repeat. Granted, that death spiral scenario is extremely bad for shareholders because over long periods of time their investment capital is devalued and their position/stake in the company decreases against their will as a greater number of shares come into the O/S. However, one must realize that in this scenario, it is the raw dilution that is what is bad for stakeholders, not any R/S. I believe most experienced investors who have been burnt in the past, dread an R/S because they immediately see it as a way for management to setup a reload situation with more dilution to come in the future, but again, it would be useless massive dilution in the future which would cause loss of shareholder value, not any R/S by itself. Indeed, the O/S is gigantic by any measure and I would actually not see an R/S as a bad thing; it would actually be a non event but make the O/S somewhat more manageable. IMO to have an O/S in the multiple billions of shares is a little bit ridiculous, tens of millions is fine but over 2 billion shares seems too large. Just my opinions, of course. 
GLTA
GLTA
