It really is quite common for companies to take th
Post# of 15624
(Total Views: 607)
Posted On: 05/16/2017 5:49:43 PM
Re: DigitalTradz #8881
It really is quite common for companies to take the extra days the SEC allows in issuing quarterly and annual reports. I frankly don't know what, if any penalties are applied to OTC companies that miss the dates altogether.
I've been in Pink stocks that haven't reported for years. Suddenly they not only start to report again, but file back reports that were missing in an attempt to resurrect the companies, often to be able to sell the corporate shell. My point is, they continue to trade on the exchange with no input from the company. The OTC is certainly a step up from the Pinks, I feel it's a bigger step than from the OTC to the Nasdaq who's regulations are roughly the same.
To me, the Nasdaq is wrong about listing and retention requirements, as it's not market cap based. To list on the Nasdaq a company must have a price of $4 or more. To remain on the Nasdaq, a company cannot have a share price under $1 for over a year, if they request a six months extension, after they receive a Nasdaq's requirements letter. The point is, none of these things are market cap based. Staying on the Nasdaq often requires reverse splits, which reflect negatively on the company.
If a company like 0WCP wished to be on the Nasdaq, a reverse split would certainly be one way they could reach the $4 or greater price essentially instantly. It's the wrong way of doing it, but it could be done.
I'm of the belief that market cap should be what determines who can be on an exchange. What difference does it make if a company with a $100 million market cap has 10 million shares outstanding, and is therefore trading at $10, or 100 million shares outstanding, and trading for $1, or a billion shares, and trading for a dime. I don't know what ought to be the threshold level for getting on the Nasdaq, but I suspect something like $50 million, or perhaps even $100 million, ought to be required for a listing. What is the difference if the company chooses to have a lot of shares, or very few, like Berkshire Hathaway, and just allow the share to grow to extremely high prices.
While reverse splits are almost always viewed as bad news, splits are practically always viewed as good news. In the 1990's AMGN split every time the share price approached $100, all totaled it split 48 to 1. Now it's trading well over $100 and hasn't chosen to split. Apple did a 7 for 1 split when the stock was under $400, as I remember it, the pre-split 100 shares are now worth about $1100 and their are now over 5 billion issued shares.
To me it doesn't make sense that companies with market caps around $10 million are on the Nasdaq, while a company like OWCP needs to have a market cap of roughly $700 million to achieve the $4 share price to get there.
As always, JMHO.
Gary
I've been in Pink stocks that haven't reported for years. Suddenly they not only start to report again, but file back reports that were missing in an attempt to resurrect the companies, often to be able to sell the corporate shell. My point is, they continue to trade on the exchange with no input from the company. The OTC is certainly a step up from the Pinks, I feel it's a bigger step than from the OTC to the Nasdaq who's regulations are roughly the same.
To me, the Nasdaq is wrong about listing and retention requirements, as it's not market cap based. To list on the Nasdaq a company must have a price of $4 or more. To remain on the Nasdaq, a company cannot have a share price under $1 for over a year, if they request a six months extension, after they receive a Nasdaq's requirements letter. The point is, none of these things are market cap based. Staying on the Nasdaq often requires reverse splits, which reflect negatively on the company.
If a company like 0WCP wished to be on the Nasdaq, a reverse split would certainly be one way they could reach the $4 or greater price essentially instantly. It's the wrong way of doing it, but it could be done.
I'm of the belief that market cap should be what determines who can be on an exchange. What difference does it make if a company with a $100 million market cap has 10 million shares outstanding, and is therefore trading at $10, or 100 million shares outstanding, and trading for $1, or a billion shares, and trading for a dime. I don't know what ought to be the threshold level for getting on the Nasdaq, but I suspect something like $50 million, or perhaps even $100 million, ought to be required for a listing. What is the difference if the company chooses to have a lot of shares, or very few, like Berkshire Hathaway, and just allow the share to grow to extremely high prices.
While reverse splits are almost always viewed as bad news, splits are practically always viewed as good news. In the 1990's AMGN split every time the share price approached $100, all totaled it split 48 to 1. Now it's trading well over $100 and hasn't chosen to split. Apple did a 7 for 1 split when the stock was under $400, as I remember it, the pre-split 100 shares are now worth about $1100 and their are now over 5 billion issued shares.
To me it doesn't make sense that companies with market caps around $10 million are on the Nasdaq, while a company like OWCP needs to have a market cap of roughly $700 million to achieve the $4 share price to get there.
As always, JMHO.
Gary
(0)
(0)