What you express is the usual, expectant behavior. What almost all companies do. To import little or nothing what happens to the shareholders. Repeating yourself in that behavior will not do so: special, different, unique. But the same crap that you find especially in OTC (but does not escape NASDAQ) and in all projects that start.
Unfortunately, we must wait and be slaughtered. That has not happened yet if there are no further changes in the stock structure. 100 times fewer shares, the balance is clear that the price will be concentrated 100 times more. If the power of the project as a business maintains the quality that is expected of it, thinking about $ 100 per share is not crazy (equivalent to if before 100:1 the price would have risen to $ 1 a very easy estimate to expect then)
The company has two paths to follow. The most usual
(1) "We do not give a damn what happens to our shareholders,"
A message that will duly copy the stakeholder market will be plagued by speculators and swallows that will little help to give floor and solidity to the project from the stock as a financing resource. Bloggers and experts, the bastards, will tear up with their speculations (as is also normal). And the company will have to deal with the same crap that it offered.
The other way forward for the company is the one I propose:
"For us the most important are our shareholders and we have tried it since we acquired this company."
The market will read clear and strong that message about the evidence. The price will skyrocket in an accelerated and indescribable way. Speculators and swallows will have no place, in fact if they enter they will become stable shareholders. Serious Blogs and serious experts will speak not only of the project in full development, but also of the price as it rises steeply, and how this company cares as one of its main assets to its shareholders.
I am sure that the right decision is clear. It is one in which the company establishes a win/win and not win/lose the relationship.
However, it is a decision that is in their hands. I fulfill my duty to present the company (if they read around here) two ways, and the one where the current shareholders will be massacred is not the best way for the interests of the same company.
Unfortunately, we must wait and be slaughtered. That has not happened yet if there are no further changes in the stock structure. 100 times fewer shares, the balance is clear that the price will be concentrated 100 times more. If the power of the project as a business maintains the quality that is expected of it, thinking about $ 100 per share is not crazy (equivalent to if before 100:1 the price would have risen to $ 1 a very easy estimate to expect then)
The company has two paths to follow. The most usual
(1) "We do not give a damn what happens to our shareholders,"
A message that will duly copy the stakeholder market will be plagued by speculators and swallows that will little help to give floor and solidity to the project from the stock as a financing resource. Bloggers and experts, the bastards, will tear up with their speculations (as is also normal). And the company will have to deal with the same crap that it offered.
The other way forward for the company is the one I propose:
"For us the most important are our shareholders and we have tried it since we acquired this company."
The market will read clear and strong that message about the evidence. The price will skyrocket in an accelerated and indescribable way. Speculators and swallows will have no place, in fact if they enter they will become stable shareholders. Serious Blogs and serious experts will speak not only of the project in full development, but also of the price as it rises steeply, and how this company cares as one of its main assets to its shareholders.
I am sure that the right decision is clear. It is one in which the company establishes a win/win and not win/lose the relationship.
However, it is a decision that is in their hands. I fulfill my duty to present the company (if they read around here) two ways, and the one where the current shareholders will be massacred is not the best way for the interests of the same company.
1
