which isn't even true if you can't sell it. If you can't sell it, it's worth "$0".
I actually don't understand what the article describes, this "lock-out" period. Is it actually a common thing? Isn't the stock price set by people willing to buy? If it can't be sold, how can there be a price?
This guy doesn't seem too big on reading the fine print: invests in Penny stocks and doesn't realize risk? Invests $100k without finding out details? Doesn't know what preferred shares are? Figured 1:1000 (public deal) and 1:30 / 3:1 (his deal) was exactly the same?
That's why I don't understand the author's surprise that the stock price was moving after the reverse split. Of course there were other parties which didn't sign such a deal.
I assume there's more to the story in part 2 which i will wait for, but so far I have no sympathy or lesson-learned to match the title.
DiIorio recalls it peaking at $3.50 by September 2006, giving his holdings a value of around $1.3 million.
the stock plummeted from $3.50 to $0.06 a share within two months.
So by the end of part 1, he's down to $22k.