Sirius XM Radio Inc. received notice from the Nasdaq Stock Market two days ago that its common stock is not in compliance with a Nasdaq Marketplace Rule. Why? Because SIRI had not closed above $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days.
Nasdaq has a minimum bid price requirement - which was reinstituted on August 3rd after going on hiatus thanks to the crummy economy - and Sirius XM now isn't currently in compliance with that. If at any time between now and March 15th, Sirius XM's common stock closes at or above $1 for 10 days straight, the company can then regain compliancec.
This isn't exactly a surprise and indeed the company says the "notification was expected" and it intends to maintain the listing on Nasdaq. The Company intends to maintain the listing of its common stock on Nasdaq.
Back in May 2009, Sirius XM's stockholders approved an amendment to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio of not less than one-for-ten and not more than one-for-fifty.
The board of directors intends to effect the reverse stock split - and has authority to do so any time beffore June 30, 2010 - but only if it determines the reverse split to be in the best interests of stockholders. Doing a reverse split would put the company in compliance with the Nasdaq bid price requirement.
This isn't exactly a surprise and indeed the company says the "notification was expected" and it intends to maintain the listing on Nasdaq. The Company intends to maintain the listing of its common stock on Nasdaq.
Back in May 2009, Sirius XM's stockholders approved an amendment to effect a reverse stock split at a ratio of not less than one-for-ten and not more than one-for-fifty.
The board of directors intends to effect the reverse stock split - and has authority to do so any time beffore June 30, 2010 - but only if it determines the reverse split to be in the best interests of stockholders. Doing a reverse split would put the company in compliance with the Nasdaq bid price requirement.
Learn how to spell,idiot.
"Because SIRI had not closed below $1.00 per share for 30 consecutive business days."
Is that worded right? Been below a dollar for some time
www.stockshockmovie.com
If you change the 30 to a 40, and add two more zeros (400), then it might make sense. Yeah.... I think the word "not" is the culprit.
It is worded correctly. The established requirement for NASDAQ listed stocks to remain over $1 was set aside to give the economy and struggling tech companies a chance to recover. Sirius avoided the threat of de-listing as a result. Until now...
As the article states "Nasdaq has a minimum bid price requirement - which was reinstituted on August 3rd after going on hiatus thanks to the crummy economy - and Sirius XM now isn't currently in compliance with that."
It is time for this dog to get back over a dollar a share. All of you suckers who voted for the reverse stock split amendment will see the results of your actions. Best interests of the shareholders... HA!
Personally, I am glad that I sold all my shares earlier this week. I just wish I had sold them off before the merger when my XM shares were worth something.
no, it is not worded correctly.
he meant now, not not.
there are many more typo's in that article.
he needs to get himself a proofreader. this is unacceptable for a journalist. if he was posting on yahoo, who cares, but this is a bonafide website.
Given its current price of about 70 cents a share, the stock has actually recovered fairly nicely from its lowest levels. A person could have made a very nice profit on an investment made a year or so ago in this stock. Of course, I believe SIRI would recover a lot more value if they'd stop chasing away their customers.
However, could someone explain why a reverse split would be bad for shareholders? I can understand that one problem is, if the stock goes up a penny and you have one share, you gain half as much value as you would have if you had two. Even so, I would think a reverse split would be better than having the stock drop off the exchange -- and, a very low-priced stock tends to be regarded as a risky investment, so I'd think the chance for the stock going up would improve if the value per share were higher.
Because if it is reverse split it because a juicy target for shorting. This stock was obliterated by shorts and if they do reverse split it will be shorted again.
It is correct - I need to get some sleep. It has closed BELOW $1.00 a share for almost a year, which is way beyond 30 consecutive days, obviously.
Sorry, I was in a rush, my mistake for the typos guys. I think I fixed them all. :)