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 split won't save you from being delisted.
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". They can work sometimes, mostly for:
1) Large, established companies (e.g. AIG). Investors are more willing to believe that this is just a bad stretch for an otherwise valuable company.
2) Inherently risky and volatile industries, like Biotech. Investors are willing to roll the dice a bit more with Biotech because it is entirely possible for a "worthless" company to become very valuable very quickly (e.g. by discovering a new drug, being approved for trials, etc.).
Blue Apron isn't a large company, and it's very unlikely they figure out some magic formula that makes their company significantly more valuable overnight.
EDIT: For a recent example of a company reverse splitting to avoid delisting, check out Helios and Matheson (MoviePass). Even after the reverse split, they're trading for pennies a share. They're almost certainly going to be delisted in the near future.
> 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'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?
> 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 the plumber to fix it.
> 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.
29 days is to trigger the delisting process. NYSE will then contact them about their plan to become compliant (which gives them an extra 10 days to respond), and basically puts them on the equivalent of a PIP (and carries many of the same implications that PIPs do). They're then held to certain financial milestones, which can result in delisting if they don't meet them.
Depending on the company, the whole process can be pretty long - see, for example, HMNY which I think triggered the delisting process officially in June of this year, but obviously is still listed on NASDAQ. If Blue Apron does get delisted, it won't be until well into next year.
> Even if the company believes they can increase their valuation within 29 days, why not have a backup plan also?
Because it's not a plan. It doesn't improve the fundamentals of the company at all. It's an admission that you have no idea how to create more value and are merely buying time. Unless you truly believe that Blue Apron is on a great trajectory and just needs a few years for the market to catch up on that idea, a reverse stock split should anger you as a shareholder.
A backup plan is to take on debt, to replace every single executive, or to seek acquisition. A reverse stock split could be part of a larger plan, but it's not a plan itself. It's a tactic.
Thanks for elaborating on the delisting process; that does seem somewhat more reasonable.
> [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.
