Albert, I don't deny that the 10-12G can provide v
Post# of 36566
(Total Views: 244)
Posted On: 09/09/2020 5:45:11 PM
Albert, I don't deny that the 10-12G can provide valuable information. That was clearly not at all my point. And maybe it technically doesn't require an EFFECT, although someone on this board interacted with the SEC on this matter, and the SEC indicated an EFFECT would be posted.
If you look at the NGIO Edgar page, the first thing you see chronologically is a 10-12G. That is then followed by 3 letters from the SEC, spanning months, which request needed information from a new company. Those letters were, as far as any reader can tell, completely ignored, and their requests were not fulfilled in any sort of a timely manner. As a result, they were posted as a punitive measure by the SEC, a punishment that was called out in the letters and apparently had no effect.
So at best it does not bode well for a company to have this as their leading information stream as a potential investor tries to analyze whether they want to invest or not. An investor is not going to be impressed that the CEO didn't respond to threats from the SEC, and the SEC felt the need to air this dirty laundry.
Furthermore, this potential investor (who, until we uplist and raise the SP is an individual, most likely not trained as a CFP, broker, etc.) isn't going to know that a Form EFFECT isn't needed. They are going to digest the info in front of them.
So whether an EFFECT is required or not, it is my opinion that a potential investor can either rely on the information available to them on the SEC site, or they can take second-hand remarks on a chat board from a CEO they don't know who gives it the old "everything is ok!".
My (potentially incorrect) interpretation is that there is no way the SEC allowed the automatic approval of the Form 10-12G when they had outstanding requests for information which were, per the SECs posted letters, blatantly ignored for months.
So as the investor continues to read on, they see 3 amendments to the 10-12G, the latest of which was filed on 8-13, less than 60 days ago.
How is an investor supposed to rest assured that the requests for information from the SEC have been completely fulfilled? Should they have assumed that happened when the first amendment was filed on 6-12? If so, why were the next 2 amendments required?
All I'm saying is, until something like the S-1 filing occurs that proves the 10 is truly cleared and accepted, I'm not going to believe a hand-me-down comment from Joe that all is as it should be. He has not shown any ability to-date to navigate this process as he or anyone else has predicted or expected.
I'm not suggesting people sell shares or anything. I still have never sold a share, and I have added as recently as last week. However, I will not be taking Joe's word on any important matters regarding GNBT or NGIO when there is information available to me that can cause a reasonable doubt.
That is, unfortunately, where I am until Joe puts a few of these regulatory requirements and deals successfully in the rear view mirror.
As far as your CYDY comparison goes, I appreciate your idea. I am also a shareholder there. But I believe this is an apples to oranges comparison. ~$3B mkt cap, no toxic financing (partially due to that mkt cap), etc. They are not dealing with as many bottom-feeders as GNBT, so the margin for error is not as slim as what we have here.
If you look at the NGIO Edgar page, the first thing you see chronologically is a 10-12G. That is then followed by 3 letters from the SEC, spanning months, which request needed information from a new company. Those letters were, as far as any reader can tell, completely ignored, and their requests were not fulfilled in any sort of a timely manner. As a result, they were posted as a punitive measure by the SEC, a punishment that was called out in the letters and apparently had no effect.
So at best it does not bode well for a company to have this as their leading information stream as a potential investor tries to analyze whether they want to invest or not. An investor is not going to be impressed that the CEO didn't respond to threats from the SEC, and the SEC felt the need to air this dirty laundry.
Furthermore, this potential investor (who, until we uplist and raise the SP is an individual, most likely not trained as a CFP, broker, etc.) isn't going to know that a Form EFFECT isn't needed. They are going to digest the info in front of them.
So whether an EFFECT is required or not, it is my opinion that a potential investor can either rely on the information available to them on the SEC site, or they can take second-hand remarks on a chat board from a CEO they don't know who gives it the old "everything is ok!".
My (potentially incorrect) interpretation is that there is no way the SEC allowed the automatic approval of the Form 10-12G when they had outstanding requests for information which were, per the SECs posted letters, blatantly ignored for months.
So as the investor continues to read on, they see 3 amendments to the 10-12G, the latest of which was filed on 8-13, less than 60 days ago.
How is an investor supposed to rest assured that the requests for information from the SEC have been completely fulfilled? Should they have assumed that happened when the first amendment was filed on 6-12? If so, why were the next 2 amendments required?
All I'm saying is, until something like the S-1 filing occurs that proves the 10 is truly cleared and accepted, I'm not going to believe a hand-me-down comment from Joe that all is as it should be. He has not shown any ability to-date to navigate this process as he or anyone else has predicted or expected.
I'm not suggesting people sell shares or anything. I still have never sold a share, and I have added as recently as last week. However, I will not be taking Joe's word on any important matters regarding GNBT or NGIO when there is information available to me that can cause a reasonable doubt.
That is, unfortunately, where I am until Joe puts a few of these regulatory requirements and deals successfully in the rear view mirror.
As far as your CYDY comparison goes, I appreciate your idea. I am also a shareholder there. But I believe this is an apples to oranges comparison. ~$3B mkt cap, no toxic financing (partially due to that mkt cap), etc. They are not dealing with as many bottom-feeders as GNBT, so the margin for error is not as slim as what we have here.
(3)
(0)