freezing ppl's bank accounts and stealing therefrom without a hearing -without due process - without probable cause -let alone a conviction-is theft!!!!
and normally only occurs in a dictatorship- which thus shocked those in the know-including exec orders which would allow him to suspend congress without a hearing
Such widespread theft against longs in fulfillment of a vendetta to destroy business bc "all business is evil and must be destroyed" was blatantly unconstitutional,unprecedented -a never before seen taking-similar to a nationalization/taking of an industry by an autocratic govt-which destroyed many co's and many longs including my friendn and made my life unnecessarily miserable.
innocent 3rd party purchasers are never held liable in the law!!!
the only example i can think of is if ppl who legally bought from a store were required to return the goods they bought without reason or compensation
changing a rule via due process is not anywhere near the same category
the lawmaker who decided business and longs must be destroyed without warning or due process...
the purpose of the tightening against small otc co's and longs was to eliminate such co's bc "business must be destroyed"
thats the opposite of the present administration you refer to-thus it is illogical to presume a pro-business entity would knowingly be behind such a rule change-esp without amelioration of the charges by otc to be listed as pink current.
If the REAL purpose is transparency -and not otc's bottom line profit-then at least co's without net revenue should not be required/forced to pay the same fees to otc,which when coupled w the ancillary accounting and legal fees etc makes such a current class listing financially prohibitive to many co's who would elect to be current otc class IF IF IF they could afford it
just as tax tables are proportional to income, the fees charged by otc should be proportional to the income of the co's,especially if draconian measures are to be taken against co's for not being pink current or higher
the following chart shows, as i mentioned, the sharp decrease in co's on otcqb after otc raised otcqb requirements to a 10,000/yr listing surcharge plus pps above 1c -
only 945 otcqb co's whereas 9415 pink-thought it was over 9000 pink but was being conservative bc didnt want to look it up,bc unlike many bashers i dont get paid for posting
from otc newsletter -Monthly Trade Summary - February 2020
Market Designations Number
of Securities* Monthly
$ Volume Monthly $ Volume
per Security YTD $ Volume*
OTCQX 468 $5,773,668,914 $12,336,899 $10,763,040,755
OTCQB 945 $1,484,875,627 $1,571,296 $2,785,133,543
Pink 9,430 $25,469,914,712 $2,700,945 $50,470,345,197
Total 10,843 $32,728,459,254 $3,018,395 $64,018,519,497
only 945 otcqb stocks now bc otc raised the surcharge to be listed as such to 10,000 /yr - this reduced transparency for many co's, as i said, forcing many hundreds to thousands of co's off otcqb to downlist to pinks
bc the otc is a for profit co which receives 40% or more of its revenues last l looked from said co's filing and news discosure services on otc,which thus attempts in a manner of speaking to monopolize
the sec is suppose to be independent or semi so but the dictatorship seen from 2009 on was unprecedented and unbelievable
you falsely assume trump controls the sec- last i knew 3 of the 5 sec comm's were obama appointees and its well known there was an unprecedented years long and continuing blockage of trumps political appointments
by law no more than 3 of the 5 comm;s are allowed to be from the same party as an inefficient attempt to prevent domination
you err in the presumption that all dark co's are dark bc they are trying to commit fraud- i've seen sec reporting co's which were scams
as i've said many dark co's are dark bc they cant pay the higher fees otc keeps charging over the years combined with the ancillary fees noted in the cite you posted-
so many co's like NNLX have a choice between surviving as non-reporting co's vs committing financial suicide by paying the high costs required to be reporting- which would force the co's into toxic debt and bankruptcy- thats the real purpose behind bashers continual demands that NNLX etc pay the high costs to be otc reporting-bashers dont really want that to happen as they pretend
the bashers real purpose behind their push to get NNLX to issue PR's is to report such as promotional activity to the otc to get otc to slap the skull and bones and thus destroy longs as occurred from 2009 to 2016ff
IF NNLX etc could afford to be pink current many such co's would rush to do so bc doing so would increase the buy sell ratio in favor of the buyers, longs and the co's and would take much of bashers shorters ammo away from them etc- such co's are not trying to hide in the dark -they are being forced to for reasons i've noted
i'm very aware of these things but dont waste my time unearthing bashers fraudulent schemes unless i'm pushed to do so-so thanks for pushing me to reveal some of what i know while still holding back
its interesting u dont mention the fraud by brokers mm's dtcc etc
and why does otc charge current pink class $4200(maybe higher now)/yr to list as current pink
why do brokers charge xxxx/ electronic trade when ecn trades only reportedly cost them 8c-and i'm not implying that is fraud-just pointing out the economics
and normally only occurs in a dictatorship- which thus shocked those in the know-including exec orders which would allow him to suspend congress without a hearing
Such widespread theft against longs in fulfillment of a vendetta to destroy business bc "all business is evil and must be destroyed" was blatantly unconstitutional,unprecedented -a never before seen taking-similar to a nationalization/taking of an industry by an autocratic govt-which destroyed many co's and many longs including my friendn and made my life unnecessarily miserable.
innocent 3rd party purchasers are never held liable in the law!!!
the only example i can think of is if ppl who legally bought from a store were required to return the goods they bought without reason or compensation
changing a rule via due process is not anywhere near the same category
the lawmaker who decided business and longs must be destroyed without warning or due process...
the purpose of the tightening against small otc co's and longs was to eliminate such co's bc "business must be destroyed"
thats the opposite of the present administration you refer to-thus it is illogical to presume a pro-business entity would knowingly be behind such a rule change-esp without amelioration of the charges by otc to be listed as pink current.
If the REAL purpose is transparency -and not otc's bottom line profit-then at least co's without net revenue should not be required/forced to pay the same fees to otc,which when coupled w the ancillary accounting and legal fees etc makes such a current class listing financially prohibitive to many co's who would elect to be current otc class IF IF IF they could afford it
just as tax tables are proportional to income, the fees charged by otc should be proportional to the income of the co's,especially if draconian measures are to be taken against co's for not being pink current or higher
the following chart shows, as i mentioned, the sharp decrease in co's on otcqb after otc raised otcqb requirements to a 10,000/yr listing surcharge plus pps above 1c -
only 945 otcqb co's whereas 9415 pink-thought it was over 9000 pink but was being conservative bc didnt want to look it up,bc unlike many bashers i dont get paid for posting
from otc newsletter -Monthly Trade Summary - February 2020
Market Designations Number
of Securities* Monthly
$ Volume Monthly $ Volume
per Security YTD $ Volume*
OTCQX 468 $5,773,668,914 $12,336,899 $10,763,040,755
OTCQB 945 $1,484,875,627 $1,571,296 $2,785,133,543
Pink 9,430 $25,469,914,712 $2,700,945 $50,470,345,197
Total 10,843 $32,728,459,254 $3,018,395 $64,018,519,497
only 945 otcqb stocks now bc otc raised the surcharge to be listed as such to 10,000 /yr - this reduced transparency for many co's, as i said, forcing many hundreds to thousands of co's off otcqb to downlist to pinks
bc the otc is a for profit co which receives 40% or more of its revenues last l looked from said co's filing and news discosure services on otc,which thus attempts in a manner of speaking to monopolize
the sec is suppose to be independent or semi so but the dictatorship seen from 2009 on was unprecedented and unbelievable
you falsely assume trump controls the sec- last i knew 3 of the 5 sec comm's were obama appointees and its well known there was an unprecedented years long and continuing blockage of trumps political appointments
by law no more than 3 of the 5 comm;s are allowed to be from the same party as an inefficient attempt to prevent domination
you err in the presumption that all dark co's are dark bc they are trying to commit fraud- i've seen sec reporting co's which were scams
as i've said many dark co's are dark bc they cant pay the higher fees otc keeps charging over the years combined with the ancillary fees noted in the cite you posted-
so many co's like NNLX have a choice between surviving as non-reporting co's vs committing financial suicide by paying the high costs required to be reporting- which would force the co's into toxic debt and bankruptcy- thats the real purpose behind bashers continual demands that NNLX etc pay the high costs to be otc reporting-bashers dont really want that to happen as they pretend
the bashers real purpose behind their push to get NNLX to issue PR's is to report such as promotional activity to the otc to get otc to slap the skull and bones and thus destroy longs as occurred from 2009 to 2016ff
IF NNLX etc could afford to be pink current many such co's would rush to do so bc doing so would increase the buy sell ratio in favor of the buyers, longs and the co's and would take much of bashers shorters ammo away from them etc- such co's are not trying to hide in the dark -they are being forced to for reasons i've noted
i'm very aware of these things but dont waste my time unearthing bashers fraudulent schemes unless i'm pushed to do so-so thanks for pushing me to reveal some of what i know while still holding back
its interesting u dont mention the fraud by brokers mm's dtcc etc
and why does otc charge current pink class $4200(maybe higher now)/yr to list as current pink
why do brokers charge xxxx/ electronic trade when ecn trades only reportedly cost them 8c-and i'm not implying that is fraud-just pointing out the economics
2
1
