Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : Rocky Mountain Int'l (OTC:RMIL former OTC:OVIS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Pugs who wrote (29812)	12/23/1997 9:51:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 55532

pugs, if mork were the devil and dvbc was hell it wouldn't add any value to rmil. rmil's problems are independent of mork and his objective. yes, we will see if the sec let's rmil claim over $10 mil in assets going forward. my money is that the company's assets drop WAAAAY DOWN from their last report. i also bet the $10 mil never shows up. watch in wonder ;-)

To: Pugs who wrote (29812)	12/23/1997 10:00:00 AM
From: (Bob) Zumbrunnen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 55532

RMIL is complying to the SEC's request to come up with their financials. I suggest you go re-read the SEC statement regarding shutting down trading. The SEC has not, according to their own statement, requested financials from RMIL and the late financials have zippo to do with the SEC's actions. The lateness is not an issue. No "revelance". Okay? The financials will disclose the assets. Ahhhh, but there's the rub. The SEC seems concerned that the financials will not disclose the true assets. Figures don't lie, unless liars do the figuring. Personally, I don't care which way this one pans out, but am just very curious to see the SEC in action and how they handle it. Personally, I've sent complaints to the SEC regarding HCCA, and how they were issuing press releases that proved lies that were in their filings, but the SEC has done nothing. When they don't take action on something that was an obvious scam, yet take action on a company that has the hallmarks of scam, but is not undeniably one (IMO), I get very curious about the process and why it's different here.