Many current info stocks are SEC reporting-having

Many current info stocks are SEC reporting-having dropped down from the otcqb category when otc started charging a 10k/yr surcharge for otcqb membership in 2014-2015(depending on a companies fiscal year) and required a min bid test of 1c pps.

So the question is more accurately posed as: do non-"current info" pink sheet companies officers have to report stock sales.
I've never seen any evidence that they have to but see below.




https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/NNLX/overview

when you read the warning paragraph you get an idea of the suspicion with which the regulatory authorities view 'no info' and 'limited info' stocks.

The warning paragraph also is the reason I've purposefully never communicated with NNLX or its officers. Because of my role as the primary researcher on some boards, I've been threatened publicly and privately many times by bashers shorters, so I dont give them any excuse or opportunity to whistle blow.

BECAUSE of the suspicion no info co's are viewed by regulatory authorities including DTCC and those they greenlight (otcmarkers.com.mm's brokers etc) such companies are always under regulatory authorities radar.

I've given examples before. No info and limited info co's are not allowed to have promos-and PR's are and can be interpreted as promos as otc explains under the skull and bones category.

I've personally seen otc slap a skull and bones without doing any investigation other than seeing pps ratcheting up sharply day after day which otc personally told me they assumed was the result of a promo even thought there was no promo.
Then once a ce is slapped ,during periods of open hunting season against low pennies (which occurred from 2009 to 2016 and began again jan 20) other authorities and entities often jump into a free for all fray -all without warning or due process -from experience-until a stock is frozen by DTCC without warning or due process while entities are politically greenlighted to short such to .0001,resulting in many longs losing their homes to foreclosure as my best friend did and losing their lives as my best friend-who dragged me into pennies- did.

When these unprecedented unconstitutional illegal taking without compensation against innocent third parties(longs)games began in earnest without warning or due process in 2010 those in the know re the law were flabbergasted because the illegal taking of probably 100's of billions from longs made watergate look like a very tame little girls afternoon tea party. I personally lost stock value of over 200k in one such company as longs essentially were blocked from selling while entities shorted it to .0001

Now if ppl look at my past posts they will see I defended NNLX's position as a 'no info' co to save on costs as part of an effort to avoid the usual route of toxic financing which destroys so many low penny stocks.

But I've also pointed out the dangers - the often unseen offset costs of being a no info co. A vey limited usually static investment pool as we've seen w NNLX, such co's are targeted by shorters/bashers AND WHISTLE BLOWERS.

NNLX is under investigation due to whistleblower complaint -one of the costs of being a no info co. Being pink current or higher does not eliminate whistle blowing but removes some of the incentive for the potential whistle blower and removes some of the suspicion of the co's by the reg authorities.
In my opinion and experience once a co is under such investigation it behooves the co to move at least to the current info category as soon as possible. Dealing with such investigations costs many times the magnitude of the extra 5k or more/yr cost to be current reporting.


As I've noted recently -after hearing and reading about the authorities intention to eliminate trading in no info co's -except for accredited investors- by relegating them to the grey market- the authorities are upping the ante.

I will save that for the reply post as I look that up again