Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can do that, but shareholders can also do the following in response: 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'…
> All other things being equal, isn't it good for shareholders if the stock stays on the NYSE? Shareholders would MUCH rather you have a plan to get back above $1/share. If this is your basement flooding, a reverse split is trying to soak it up with paper towels: It might work temporarily, but eventually you're gonna run out. Shareholders want to know you have a plan to fix the leak, or at least have a plan to call t…
> [A reverse split] doesn't improve the fundamentals of the company at all.
It doesn't improve the fundamentals, but doesn't worsen them either. What's the harm?
> It's an admission that you have no idea how to create more value and are merely buying time.
Not necessarily. The company might have decided that its best option is to take a calculated risk, like creating a new market, introducing an unfamiliar pricing scheme, betting on economies of scale which don't exist yet, etc. In that case Wall Street analysts might maintain a low valuation, but the company isn't doomed, it's just risky.