Let me ask yo this, why is it so magical to reduce the number of shares? What does it actually accomplish? So the price is higher, that doesn't mean our investment is any more valuable and so maybe the dividend per share can be higher, but that doesn't mean we're getting a bigger return on our investment. It won't change the market cap, it won't change the financial position of the company. What exactly does it do other than the window dressing of making the price per share comparable with JPM, C and WFC?
Not sure what tig would tell you but it's not a bad idea. Generally there is a stigma attached to revere splits because they are the result of a failing enterprise that may or may not recover. That is not the case for BAC who has 1 in 10 depositors in the US and $16 billion in pretax income last year. A reverse split is not without precedent. Citi had a 1 for 10 reverse split and is now in the 50's. JPM, a slightly bigger bank by assets has about 3.8 billion shares out. BAC could have a 1 for 2 split, leaving about 5.2 billion shares on the books and putting the stock in the mid 30's.