Once a co files the application with otcmarkets.com for "current pink classification, filing quarterly statements is relatively simple.
I've already posted the info before - the annual fees for pink current apparently increased from 4200/yr for otc 'news and disclosure service' (the posted filings on otcmarkets.com so investors can research co's) to 5500/yr plus any current info co has to supply an sec attorney approved letter quarterly stating that the co has supplied enough info to satisfy the definition of current info as per sec rules and regs -so theres that increased attorney letter cost plus probably some incremental extra accounting costs.
no info co's are not inherently scams but brokers -most of whom are terribly ignorant of the otc and penny markets- hate penny stocks(most do) and the new rule would increase their costs and require them to police 'no info' and 'limited info' penny stocks
these things are especially true in the long term as transparency requirements increase but also are politically motivated by forces which believe businesses are inherently evil and thus must be destroyed -such forces soon realized big business had too much legal and political clout so they went after small businesses -like the otc and low penny markets -which they broadly attacked beginning 2009, impacting thousands of low penny otc stocks and destroying longs in many such non current pink stocks faced w new death knell( for such stocks) requirements
the legitimate stated purpose always pulled out of the hat is investor protection through increased transparency-which is obviously a legitimate reason- but not often the purpose of the political appointees behind the changes- who are opposed to capitalism
there is obviously a positive correlation between transparency and legitimacy but i have even seen some sec reporting co's as scams
the politically motivated belief of the forces in charge of many changes views essentially all such co's as scams -and thus the warnings given on noncurrent pink co;s on otc.com
at the present time it looks like non-current co's who do not UPGRADE to pink current will be shut out of the market via at least two factors : like grey market stocks brokers will not be allowed to provide quotes for such co's -most brokers dont want anythng to do w such stocks - remember ca one half or more of otc stocks are current info- brokers dont even like dealing with current info otc stocks
brokers are no doubt in political agreement with the new rule -as they were in the 2009- 2014 barrage of attacks against otc pink co's -which gives brokers the excuse to not trade in such stocks -brokers take such actions internally before new rules even take affect -often without warning- nothing new- based on my experiences
etrade posted their position- no trading in noncurrent otc stocks- months in advance and i expect essentially all brokers to follow etrades example -remember there are thousands of current info and above current info otc stocks (otcqb and otcqx)
audited financials are NOT required for otc currrent info -pink stocks- small firms like nnlx often have only a part-time on an ad hoc basis bookkeeper who hands over the material at tax time to a CPA
its not difficult to satisfy current info requirements but some co's just cannot afford to spend the 5-7k -apparently now 6.6 to 8.5k per year- to do so- so such co's like nnlx are between a rock and a hard place - either reach revenue compatible with costs or enter into a downward toxic financing spiral or a toxic partnership which swallows up or destroys the co
so the new rule is requiring such co's to ante up no matter what the costs- to remain viable as a public company-alternatives already spoken of -black night in such exigent circumstances who destroys the co - a taking the co private buyout - via a usually black night - or fold -
or come up w the money to upgrade to satisfy the new rule hoping the co is profitable before such extra costs kill the company.
All the venues NNLX has tried the last few years -including licensing or selling the petri patents in described geographic markets-have evidently shown no fruit
the ceo's superlawyer brother presumably would have the presumably meager to him finances to upgrade to current info - but he's already footing the bill so to speak for the whistleblower SEC lawsuit-
if he or bret understood the many advantages of complying w the new rule in this environment they would jump to it- and it has perplexed me greatly as to why they either dont understand - despite all my public essays for their benefit - as the two sentences addressing the issue-the only thing we've heard on the issue- are mystifyingly confusing to me- or is there some other reason nnlx seems to be ignoring the new rule -
from what i can make of nnlx's long held silence on the issue first and then the belated confusing two sentences which to me show either ignorance of the situation or obfuscation- which confuses me even more - because now that they are the subject of an sec investigation there is nothing they will be able to hide from the SEC no matter what their reporting status is - though an open and transparent compliance w the new rule would help them w the sec and the public as i've explained for years in many rewarding ways.
they will be reporting everything they know and more to the sec because of the investigation-
so they might as well comply w the new sec rule and UPGRADE to otc pink current classification [all reporting classifications allow IP to be kept secret as i've abundantly explained before] as the best public defense/investor reassurance
the reporting they will be doing to the sec is in the final analysis mandatory in what starts out as an inquiry /investigation but can quickly escalate to more formality if the sec has reason to believe the co is withholding "requested" info from them
I've already posted the info before - the annual fees for pink current apparently increased from 4200/yr for otc 'news and disclosure service' (the posted filings on otcmarkets.com so investors can research co's) to 5500/yr plus any current info co has to supply an sec attorney approved letter quarterly stating that the co has supplied enough info to satisfy the definition of current info as per sec rules and regs -so theres that increased attorney letter cost plus probably some incremental extra accounting costs.
no info co's are not inherently scams but brokers -most of whom are terribly ignorant of the otc and penny markets- hate penny stocks(most do) and the new rule would increase their costs and require them to police 'no info' and 'limited info' penny stocks
these things are especially true in the long term as transparency requirements increase but also are politically motivated by forces which believe businesses are inherently evil and thus must be destroyed -such forces soon realized big business had too much legal and political clout so they went after small businesses -like the otc and low penny markets -which they broadly attacked beginning 2009, impacting thousands of low penny otc stocks and destroying longs in many such non current pink stocks faced w new death knell( for such stocks) requirements
the legitimate stated purpose always pulled out of the hat is investor protection through increased transparency-which is obviously a legitimate reason- but not often the purpose of the political appointees behind the changes- who are opposed to capitalism
there is obviously a positive correlation between transparency and legitimacy but i have even seen some sec reporting co's as scams
the politically motivated belief of the forces in charge of many changes views essentially all such co's as scams -and thus the warnings given on noncurrent pink co;s on otc.com
at the present time it looks like non-current co's who do not UPGRADE to pink current will be shut out of the market via at least two factors : like grey market stocks brokers will not be allowed to provide quotes for such co's -most brokers dont want anythng to do w such stocks - remember ca one half or more of otc stocks are current info- brokers dont even like dealing with current info otc stocks
brokers are no doubt in political agreement with the new rule -as they were in the 2009- 2014 barrage of attacks against otc pink co's -which gives brokers the excuse to not trade in such stocks -brokers take such actions internally before new rules even take affect -often without warning- nothing new- based on my experiences
etrade posted their position- no trading in noncurrent otc stocks- months in advance and i expect essentially all brokers to follow etrades example -remember there are thousands of current info and above current info otc stocks (otcqb and otcqx)
audited financials are NOT required for otc currrent info -pink stocks- small firms like nnlx often have only a part-time on an ad hoc basis bookkeeper who hands over the material at tax time to a CPA
its not difficult to satisfy current info requirements but some co's just cannot afford to spend the 5-7k -apparently now 6.6 to 8.5k per year- to do so- so such co's like nnlx are between a rock and a hard place - either reach revenue compatible with costs or enter into a downward toxic financing spiral or a toxic partnership which swallows up or destroys the co
so the new rule is requiring such co's to ante up no matter what the costs- to remain viable as a public company-alternatives already spoken of -black night in such exigent circumstances who destroys the co - a taking the co private buyout - via a usually black night - or fold -
or come up w the money to upgrade to satisfy the new rule hoping the co is profitable before such extra costs kill the company.
All the venues NNLX has tried the last few years -including licensing or selling the petri patents in described geographic markets-have evidently shown no fruit
the ceo's superlawyer brother presumably would have the presumably meager to him finances to upgrade to current info - but he's already footing the bill so to speak for the whistleblower SEC lawsuit-
if he or bret understood the many advantages of complying w the new rule in this environment they would jump to it- and it has perplexed me greatly as to why they either dont understand - despite all my public essays for their benefit - as the two sentences addressing the issue-the only thing we've heard on the issue- are mystifyingly confusing to me- or is there some other reason nnlx seems to be ignoring the new rule -
from what i can make of nnlx's long held silence on the issue first and then the belated confusing two sentences which to me show either ignorance of the situation or obfuscation- which confuses me even more - because now that they are the subject of an sec investigation there is nothing they will be able to hide from the SEC no matter what their reporting status is - though an open and transparent compliance w the new rule would help them w the sec and the public as i've explained for years in many rewarding ways.
they will be reporting everything they know and more to the sec because of the investigation-
so they might as well comply w the new sec rule and UPGRADE to otc pink current classification [all reporting classifications allow IP to be kept secret as i've abundantly explained before] as the best public defense/investor reassurance
the reporting they will be doing to the sec is in the final analysis mandatory in what starts out as an inquiry /investigation but can quickly escalate to more formality if the sec has reason to believe the co is withholding "requested" info from them
2
