What sucks? Does it suck that a philanthropic bil

What sucks? Does it suck that a philanthropic billionaire owns 93% of the outstanding and no other vote than his is required? I don't think so, I think just the opposite. Joe was not happy with the 200/1 reverse split and I may have felt the same had I owned shares for 15 years but I disagree with Joe and think that 200/1 was a very smart move. Shareholders own now the same percentage of the company that they owned prior to the split. What has changed? Those who own shares now realize how valuable those shares are. They do not own shares in your typical penny stock. They own shares in a company that has a grand total of 55,000 public shares and frankly most of those 55,000 will never be sold if the company starts paying dividends. Why would anyone sell when the returns from dividend payments provide a steady growing income stream? That would be beating up on those short every time a dividend was paid you say?
I say good! Teach them a lesson over and over and over again!
Have some mercy you say? Ok perhaps a forward split once a year so that is someone needs to buy a car or pay a tuition bill or had a child getting married they could generate what was needed by selling a small portion of their holdings. Meanwhile they can feel good knowing they helped to teach some criminals that crime does not pay! Works for me. Go TEVE!!!
Revenues/earnings/dividends!