in addition to the withdrawal from the sec execute
Post# of 9144
(Total Views: 609)
Posted On: 04/12/2020 3:41:09 AM
in addition to the withdrawal from the sec executed by the former infetech, as explained by mits, NNLX ha to confront the tradeoffs noted below
btw,the number of shareholders, along with other min requirements, are minimum requirements to join a big board -they dont force a company to do so!
from the last cite you've posted re this subject:
"Consider whether cost avoidance is a legitimate driver. Publicly traded companies spend a lot of time and money maintaining the standards required by the national stock exchanges and the SEC. The costs easily exceed $500,000 per year for even the smallest of the small cap companies, to include annual audits, quarterly reviews, legal fees, audit committee fees, SOX compliance costs, annual registration fees and increased insurance premiums for director and officer liability. Oftentimes, boards find that the incremental costs of the public listing outweigh the benefits. Companies often site cost savings as a significant factor in going dark. Saving precious capital is a legitimate reason, but it has a downside."
big boards cost c 185k/yr just to list
most otc co's have decided they cannot even afford the otc $10k news disclosure surcharge(plus other charges) to list on the otcqb-
thus, in 2014-2015, when otc raised the otcqb listing surcharge to 10k/yr =along w other more restrictive changes, many hundreds to thousands of formerly otcqb co's downlisted to the pinks-leaving only ca 1k co's on the otcqb,whereas there are ca 7000-9000 companies on the pinks
the tradeoff is often whether to go belly up or go dark- paying the few specialized loan shark companies for exorbitant loans is a well known death spiral-which NNLX has wisely avoided
the money NNLX has saved since 2014 etc via its present otc classification has allowed NNLX to survive-another long told me years ago NNLX had looked at the requirements to upgrade or uplist -and the requirements were "44 pages long".
there are other reasons for being dark also- in 2009 a new political leader who decided business must be destroyed -bc "all business is evil" (saw the sympathetic liberal doc on a liberal station myself)- politicized the stock market and its regulatory and semi reg agencies with unprecedented unconstitutional orders
to destroy otc co's (since he discovered big co's had too much legal political and eco clout to destroy)-
so thousands of otc co's had their stock illegally restricted without notice
-barring longs w any size position from selling while brokers, mm's and others shorted the stocks to .0001-an illegal never before seen private/public eminent domain scheme against innocent 3rd party purchasers which destroyed many co's and many longs,costing my best friend his life and i lost scores of thousands also.
due to the political pressure to destroy otc stocks-esp the most defenseless low pennies- otc was -either officially or unofficially- greenlighted to impose many new restrictions,which forced many co's to downlist and prevented other co's from uplisting
see my post on wolv re this
i was in a limited info otc co which had an on the ground breakthrough which resulted in rapidly increasing pps - so otc slapped the kiss of death skull and bones on the co.
I personally called otc to find out why. They said they did so bc they assumed xxxx co was running a large promotion- otc does not allow non-pink current co's to run promos-so without any investigation they just slapped the skull and bones for promotional activity.
Under the then hostile to business political environment otc and reg orgs were reportedly given free reign to do just about anything to restrict otc co's.
nobody knows exactly what constitutes a promo in otc's eyes- esp as the political environment changes- but PR's may be interpreted by otc as a promo at their pleasure.
I wouldnt be surprised if otc sent letters to all non current otc classes re this. That may be a reason, besides costs of PR's, why NNLX doesnt use PR's now.
Its even possible the same rationale applies to reporting financials on a web site --if a co isnt current class or higher.
its the carrot and stick- which sometimes boils down to this- either pay us our self set fees to post at a certain classification according to our rules or we will block you from providing info via other methods via the threat of the skull and bones for promo activity.
I'm greatful otc has created the forum to inform investors and in many cases increase transparency but these political and financial reasons often work against transparency also when many thousands of companies cant afford to upgrade to pink current or uplist to the otcqb etc.
otc is for profit public corp which receives c 40% or more of its revenues from the fees they charge co's for their otc postings-the higher the class -the greater the fees
other reasons why NNLX may not upgrade or up-list at this time-besides the sometimes hefty costs to do so-is the nature of the biotech business -one of the most secretive industries replete with very restrictive NDA's, which no doubt tie NNLX's hands. Even SEC reporting co's filings restrict what info is available due to trade secrets and NDA's.
btw,the number of shareholders, along with other min requirements, are minimum requirements to join a big board -they dont force a company to do so!
from the last cite you've posted re this subject:
"Consider whether cost avoidance is a legitimate driver. Publicly traded companies spend a lot of time and money maintaining the standards required by the national stock exchanges and the SEC. The costs easily exceed $500,000 per year for even the smallest of the small cap companies, to include annual audits, quarterly reviews, legal fees, audit committee fees, SOX compliance costs, annual registration fees and increased insurance premiums for director and officer liability. Oftentimes, boards find that the incremental costs of the public listing outweigh the benefits. Companies often site cost savings as a significant factor in going dark. Saving precious capital is a legitimate reason, but it has a downside."
big boards cost c 185k/yr just to list
most otc co's have decided they cannot even afford the otc $10k news disclosure surcharge(plus other charges) to list on the otcqb-
thus, in 2014-2015, when otc raised the otcqb listing surcharge to 10k/yr =along w other more restrictive changes, many hundreds to thousands of formerly otcqb co's downlisted to the pinks-leaving only ca 1k co's on the otcqb,whereas there are ca 7000-9000 companies on the pinks
the tradeoff is often whether to go belly up or go dark- paying the few specialized loan shark companies for exorbitant loans is a well known death spiral-which NNLX has wisely avoided
the money NNLX has saved since 2014 etc via its present otc classification has allowed NNLX to survive-another long told me years ago NNLX had looked at the requirements to upgrade or uplist -and the requirements were "44 pages long".
there are other reasons for being dark also- in 2009 a new political leader who decided business must be destroyed -bc "all business is evil" (saw the sympathetic liberal doc on a liberal station myself)- politicized the stock market and its regulatory and semi reg agencies with unprecedented unconstitutional orders
to destroy otc co's (since he discovered big co's had too much legal political and eco clout to destroy)-
so thousands of otc co's had their stock illegally restricted without notice
-barring longs w any size position from selling while brokers, mm's and others shorted the stocks to .0001-an illegal never before seen private/public eminent domain scheme against innocent 3rd party purchasers which destroyed many co's and many longs,costing my best friend his life and i lost scores of thousands also.
due to the political pressure to destroy otc stocks-esp the most defenseless low pennies- otc was -either officially or unofficially- greenlighted to impose many new restrictions,which forced many co's to downlist and prevented other co's from uplisting
see my post on wolv re this
i was in a limited info otc co which had an on the ground breakthrough which resulted in rapidly increasing pps - so otc slapped the kiss of death skull and bones on the co.
I personally called otc to find out why. They said they did so bc they assumed xxxx co was running a large promotion- otc does not allow non-pink current co's to run promos-so without any investigation they just slapped the skull and bones for promotional activity.
Under the then hostile to business political environment otc and reg orgs were reportedly given free reign to do just about anything to restrict otc co's.
nobody knows exactly what constitutes a promo in otc's eyes- esp as the political environment changes- but PR's may be interpreted by otc as a promo at their pleasure.
I wouldnt be surprised if otc sent letters to all non current otc classes re this. That may be a reason, besides costs of PR's, why NNLX doesnt use PR's now.
Its even possible the same rationale applies to reporting financials on a web site --if a co isnt current class or higher.
its the carrot and stick- which sometimes boils down to this- either pay us our self set fees to post at a certain classification according to our rules or we will block you from providing info via other methods via the threat of the skull and bones for promo activity.
I'm greatful otc has created the forum to inform investors and in many cases increase transparency but these political and financial reasons often work against transparency also when many thousands of companies cant afford to upgrade to pink current or uplist to the otcqb etc.
otc is for profit public corp which receives c 40% or more of its revenues from the fees they charge co's for their otc postings-the higher the class -the greater the fees
other reasons why NNLX may not upgrade or up-list at this time-besides the sometimes hefty costs to do so-is the nature of the biotech business -one of the most secretive industries replete with very restrictive NDA's, which no doubt tie NNLX's hands. Even SEC reporting co's filings restrict what info is available due to trade secrets and NDA's.
(5)
(1)