writing on wall in, page-18

Walt, of course that is correct re market cap immediately pre and post restructure but I don't necessarily agree with your other assertions. For one thing changes to the capital structure of a company can have a material impact on the value of a shareholders equity - why else would companies want to influence liquidity?

Warren Buffett has always refused to split Berkshire Hathaway stock partly because of the opportunities it brings to traders to influence more easily (it's currently about US$139,ooo per share), partly because he believes maintaining structure assists holders in developing a long term perspective as they watch the price of their stock rise. He reluctantly introduced a B class share at a proportion of FPO price to dissuade marketers who were buying Berkshire Hathaway and putting them into investment vehicles and flogging off shares in the vehicles at a clip to people who couldn't afford to buy A class.

Anyone who has watched the market for a decent length of time will have seen where changes to capital structure have had clearly adverse impacts. For example it is common enough for junior companies with bloated share issues to consolidate eg 10:1. If the company is underperforming this often has the effect of opening up more downside for traders. Personally I now would not buy a company that I know is about to restructure until that has occurred and the market has settled, unless the company is outperforming and I was convinced the change would lead to capital accumulation.

In respect of a software program, people using charts are looking for diagrams to tell them a story. Properly adjusted charts clearly diagram the history of sentiment to the company. You would still get something of that without adjustments

In the case of ERG, a properly adjusted chart over say 10 years clearly tells a story of a long period of undelivered promise. It graphically provides reasons to focus research as to why it has performed so badly.