Again, RFMK can NOT file a 10-K, until they go thr
Post# of 11899
Posted On: 03/05/2013 8:35:08 PM
Again, RFMK can NOT file a 10-K, until they go through the process of applying to become fully reporting. To maintain their current OTCV Market tier, they simply need to file quarterly and annual unaudited reports.
Here again is why a non reporting company can't file a 10-K.....Because it would not be one, and it would be a useless thing to do. I see you are again contradicting 1manband. You should know better. He knows volumes more than you. Perhaps you should call the SEC and/or FINRA.
1manband
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:04:49 PM
Re: rbtree post# 40828 Post # of 40961
That fellow is so far off of straight with his rambling post, I am not sure where to even begin.
The fact is that RFMK's talk about filing a 10-K with the SEC is ridiculous. I see from past company updates they originally claimed they would not be required to file a registration statement at all (in this case, a Form 10) and only needed to file a 10-K. Clearly, they have figured out that is not the case. But why are they still claiming to be preparing a 10-K when it is not only not necessary, but cannot actually be filed with the SEC? The first step is the Form 10 which will include audited financial statements . But, that has nothing to do with a 10-K which is a completely separate document that also happens to contain audited financial statements (but, often not the exact same financial statements as the Form 10 often requires additional audited financial information not included in a 10-K annual report). That poster doesn't seem to know the difference. And, perhaps, neither does the company.
And as far as his assertion that a non-reporting stock can "adhere" to the SEC reporting standards at any time, that is not true at all. Having an SEC registration is considered worldwide to be the gold standard. The rigorous SEC registration review process and related regulations is what sets registered companies apart from non-registered BS. That is why valuations for SEC registered and reporting companies is higher than those that don't, even if they are reporting in other jurisdictions. And why fully-reporting shells are worth many times (8-10 times more, on average) than non-reporting pink sheet shells.
It also means a non-reporting company simply can't come along and decide to "adhere" to SEC reporting requirements by throwing together an actual 10-K. sure, they can put together an "annual report" and even have audited financial statements (yet so few non-reporting companies do), but it won't be a 10-K, and it won't be Section 404 compliant, which actually makes a difference to many investors , especially institutional investors. And a market maker will rely upon the information in the comprehensive Form 10 registration, not in some unfiled and non-compliant "10-K" as the information in the Form 10 will be much more detailed and complete than what is contained in a Form 10-K annual report.
Here again is why a non reporting company can't file a 10-K.....Because it would not be one, and it would be a useless thing to do. I see you are again contradicting 1manband. You should know better. He knows volumes more than you. Perhaps you should call the SEC and/or FINRA.
1manband
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:04:49 PM
Re: rbtree post# 40828 Post # of 40961
That fellow is so far off of straight with his rambling post, I am not sure where to even begin.
The fact is that RFMK's talk about filing a 10-K with the SEC is ridiculous. I see from past company updates they originally claimed they would not be required to file a registration statement at all (in this case, a Form 10) and only needed to file a 10-K. Clearly, they have figured out that is not the case. But why are they still claiming to be preparing a 10-K when it is not only not necessary, but cannot actually be filed with the SEC? The first step is the Form 10 which will include audited financial statements . But, that has nothing to do with a 10-K which is a completely separate document that also happens to contain audited financial statements (but, often not the exact same financial statements as the Form 10 often requires additional audited financial information not included in a 10-K annual report). That poster doesn't seem to know the difference. And, perhaps, neither does the company.
And as far as his assertion that a non-reporting stock can "adhere" to the SEC reporting standards at any time, that is not true at all. Having an SEC registration is considered worldwide to be the gold standard. The rigorous SEC registration review process and related regulations is what sets registered companies apart from non-registered BS. That is why valuations for SEC registered and reporting companies is higher than those that don't, even if they are reporting in other jurisdictions. And why fully-reporting shells are worth many times (8-10 times more, on average) than non-reporting pink sheet shells.
It also means a non-reporting company simply can't come along and decide to "adhere" to SEC reporting requirements by throwing together an actual 10-K. sure, they can put together an "annual report" and even have audited financial statements (yet so few non-reporting companies do), but it won't be a 10-K, and it won't be Section 404 compliant, which actually makes a difference to many investors , especially institutional investors. And a market maker will rely upon the information in the comprehensive Form 10 registration, not in some unfiled and non-compliant "10-K" as the information in the Form 10 will be much more detailed and complete than what is contained in a Form 10-K annual report.
(0)
(0)