Its disappointing you didn't give any weight to th
Post# of 22465
(Total Views: 459)
Posted On: 05/21/2021 7:34:26 PM
Its disappointing you didn't give any weight to the positives but just dwelt in the negatives. You know what I think. You've said "I hope you're right" before and now you say you, "will more than happy eat my words and say that I was wrong". I hope you don't mind if I restate some positives for a fair and balanced total view.
Mitigating factors in QMC's case are that they have released about half the Q's that were late, and that shows effort to get into SEC compliance, without a doubt. These recently submitted Q's were submitted prior to the suspension, showing intention in response to the original SEC letters, not the latest letter. I think that's an important factor. You don't think the SEC will take that into account? Why have the SEC then?
Just to smite all companies it does not approve of without any reason?
Also I would bet most all of those companies on that list do not have all of the following:
1. Sales and Revenue to be booked on upcoming Q's.
2. Guarantee of payments for services upon completion of certain requirements.
3. A Purchase/Partnership Agreement that both specifies SEC compliance as a requirement for its execution, and solidifies QMC's prospects to remain compliant in the future.
For the SEC to consider those points, you have to stop thinking the SEC just lumps all companies together without any consideration of other factors, like revenue and business being in process, but just looks at all companies like a one-eyed cyclops, only focusing on one solitary consideration - that they are delinquent!
I think the SEC would look at such a company with the 3 points I made far different than most of the companies on that list. I believe QMC will be able to make the case to the SEC to allow them to continue trading.
So if it turns our you are wrong and QMC continues trading, I will take your word when you tell me you printed out your post and ""will more than happy eat my words and say that I was wrong".
Mitigating factors in QMC's case are that they have released about half the Q's that were late, and that shows effort to get into SEC compliance, without a doubt. These recently submitted Q's were submitted prior to the suspension, showing intention in response to the original SEC letters, not the latest letter. I think that's an important factor. You don't think the SEC will take that into account? Why have the SEC then?
Just to smite all companies it does not approve of without any reason?
Also I would bet most all of those companies on that list do not have all of the following:
1. Sales and Revenue to be booked on upcoming Q's.
2. Guarantee of payments for services upon completion of certain requirements.
3. A Purchase/Partnership Agreement that both specifies SEC compliance as a requirement for its execution, and solidifies QMC's prospects to remain compliant in the future.
For the SEC to consider those points, you have to stop thinking the SEC just lumps all companies together without any consideration of other factors, like revenue and business being in process, but just looks at all companies like a one-eyed cyclops, only focusing on one solitary consideration - that they are delinquent!
I think the SEC would look at such a company with the 3 points I made far different than most of the companies on that list. I believe QMC will be able to make the case to the SEC to allow them to continue trading.
So if it turns our you are wrong and QMC continues trading, I will take your word when you tell me you printed out your post and ""will more than happy eat my words and say that I was wrong".
(1)
(0)