with out the share split i don't think we would have met the volume requirement and the split allowed for more retail investors to participate and reduced day-to-day volatility $4:$1

Seems like a two edged sword. What you're saying is probably true, but by splitting the stock we exposed ourselves to another risk - ie. falling below 5 dollars. I doubt anyone could have forseen that, but there it is. If we hadn't split, we'd be trading over 16 and wouldn't have had issues with margin or fund restrictions. Once we hit 5 there was definitely some forced selling that wouldn't have happened at 16.

There's also the matter of shares outstanding. Sure 135M vs. 34M is a wash if you're aware of the split. To someone just browsing though, 135M is a big number, and if someone set a screen for shares outstanding under 100M, they''d miss us altogether.

Has anyone actually done a study to prove that price makes a difference to the retail investor? 1000 shares @ 4 may seem more affordable than 100 shares @ 40, but the price per share has other consequences, as we've seen. I'm not sure this solves the problem of volatility, or just adds to it.

It's all hindsight of course. Something to talk about while the paint dries.

ebear