SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Ditchdigger who wrote (37820)1/23/1998 6:39:00 PM
From: Mr. Dendro  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 55532
 
Personally, I believe all this flap over the 10K to be a red herring. Sure, I'd like to see the 10K, but so many things have happened since the end of June (merger, loss of factory in Nicarugua, etc) that the 10K will not really present the true face of the company. This company needs to get up to date on its filings. By Feb. 15, shareholders should demand to see not only the 10K, but audited 10Qs for the quarters ending September 30 and December 30.

I for one will be very upset if the company puts out the 10K and then asserts that it is trying to do the right thing by the shareholders. We shareholders should not accept anything less than up-to-date, audited filings. Late filings are one of the red flags that prevent new money from investing in this company and sustaining the stock price (once it starts trading).



To: Ditchdigger who wrote (37820)1/23/1998 6:48:00 PM
From: Rich_1  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 55532
 
DD surely you can't be that dumb to not understand basic English. The 18 months that TL was referring to was with respect to the comments stated here that the MMs could use the previous financials as long as it hadn't been more than 18 months since its release. If you reread that post slowly, you should be able to see that that was the point being made. If you believe that the 18 months period is from the end of the fiscal year for which those financials covered, then he would be correct. Later All.

Rich_1




To: Ditchdigger who wrote (37820)1/23/1998 6:54:00 PM
From: Ditchdigger  Respond to of 55532
 
law.uc.edu