My post on another board where they look at pinksheets solely as fraud scams.
Although I agree with you with respect to the need to reduce fraud, I disagree if you are saying that having a place where more information is available is a bad thing. It is true that many think that pink sheet level 2 quotes and the company quoted are somehow on a par with real stock exchange quotes. Pinksheets.com does have disclaimers and I think that they are performing a real service to those who are willing to take risks. If you are old enough to know the reason they are called "pink sheets," then you know that this "market" has existed for decades and that things are better now than they were.
I can't argue with you if you say that progress brings problems. I would prefer to go forward and require MORE information. Pinksheets.com with the nasdaq has made changes, including internal rules relative to Rule 2-11 for MM's. I'd like to see more.
I'd like to see a requirement for up to date capital and debt structure. I.e., no dilution and dumping, no convertibles, before this is listed on pinksheets.com. In fact, I'd require a week's notice.
Further, I'd mandate strict penalties. If there is a violation, the entity and the individual officers, including IR, should be prevented from being involved in another entity that uses the same quoted medium. Pipe dream? Not with today's technology that is able to keep track of scamsters.
I guess what I'm saying is that rather than a lot of posturing about these things, I'd prefer to see a lot of us who see this scamming make constructive suggestions that may have a chance of being implemented. If we could provide advance notice of dumping and dilution, we could probably eliminate a very high percentage of the scams IMO. |
