https://cabotwealth.com/daily/how-to-invest/reverse-stock-splits-...

https://cabotwealth.com/daily/how-to-invest/reverse-stock-splits-shareholders/

Many points in the article back my sentiment and what i have seen. But i will only post this, you can read the rest yourselves:

"Researchers at the Stern School of Business at NYU and Emory University looked at more than 40 years of data, from 1962 to 2001, and found that of the 1,600 reverse stock splits, shares underperformed their non-split peers by 15.6% in the first year following the split, 36% in the second year and 54% in the third year."

Since 2001, i bet my left nut the numbers are even worse.

But, to keep this argument balanced.

"Reverse Stock Splits Aren’t All Bad.

Sometimes companies decide to reverse split their shares just because they want to offer their shares at reasonable prices to attract new shareholders. There are examples of stocks that have prospered after doing so, including Citigroup (C). Citi probably had the most famous reverse split—a 1 for 10 reverse split in May 2011. Citi became a $40 stock and is now trading at $62. The split was billed as “returning value to the shareholders.” The company had already survived the financial meltdown, and had begun paying a dividend, so investors thought it probably couldn’t get any worse. And they were right!Other companies like AIG (AIG), E*Trade (ETFC), Motorola (MSI) and Priceline.com (PCLN), have endured—and prospered—after a reverse stock split.You can see that these firms that not only survived but prospered were fairly large and well-known businesses. And most studies have confirmed that firm size is very important in the determination of successful reverse stock splits, along with operating and price performance prior to the split, and, of course, market volatility."

Yeah. WBT never even built the clout. 

This is going down. Down, to funky town.