Earlier quoted context omitted.
What stops companies from repeatedly reverse-splitting the stock to keep it above $1?
Paraphrasing from another answer: You can do that, but shareholders can also do the following in response: 1) Demand a change in leadership, a sale, or any number of significant changes. 2) Bail out en masse and sell, lowering the price even further. Few investors want to jump aboard what appears to be a sinking ship. Eventually you'll hit the minimum market cap requirement as well, at which point a reverse stock spl…
Why would investors retaliate over a reverse stock split though? All other things being equal, isn't it good for shareholders if the stock stays on the NYSE?
> Reverse stock splits simply to avoid being delisted is telling investors "we have no idea how to change direction so we're just gonna kick the can down the road for a bit".
29 days isn't a lot of time, and even if the company quickly pivoted, they can't be sure about how the market will react.
Even if the company believes they can increase their valuation within 29 days, why not have a backup plan also?