"Unless I'm mistaken, reverse splits are 'revenue neutral' - no one loses money, no one makes money. To my way of thinking, it can't provide any 'dollar value'. The 'value' you are talking about is another type of value. Perhaps 'emotional value' - that I can only guess at."

The above is a very interesting statment, Snug.

One can understand that company X, with some exploration property somewhere, and cash problems, that has to raise capital, and the only way to do it is by doing a RS. There is no firm value that can be attached to their holdings, and they are at the mercy of the markets. So by doing the RS the only result is that they reduce their outstanding shares, which eventually return to the original share price.

However, consider SPQ. They own 26.5% of Big Daddy, as well as other properties along with KWG. KWG has just done a huge PP at .12, without having to do a RS, and likely won't do so in the near future, and also owns 26.5%. The remainder of the property is owned by CLF, which incidently has seen a very good share appreciation based to some degree on their holdings in the ROF.

It seems a fair assumption that since SPQ will still retain the same holdings after the RS as it did before, that their market cap would remain the same, unless one argues that KWG and CLF will suffer as a result of this RS.

Clear as mud to me.

Best regards

K