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 : NCDR -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (454)	6/1/1999 8:57:00 AM
From: Ginco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1440

<<If you really are trying to "educate" the innocent, then at least reference the whole quote.>> Art-You do understand that these are shorts at work,They claim that they are here to protect the innocent,uncover scams,ect.. They are just trying to drive the stock down. That's how they make money,That's what it's all about..Money

To: Arthur_Porcari who wrote (454)	6/2/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: Q.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1440

Arthur, re. <<John, I believe the correct answer is your ignorance (lack of knowledge) of what is required in a 10q filing. Should a company even elect to file 10q's. Not all companies do. 10q's are not mandatory for BB stocks, usually prepared in house (unaudited) and are usually just a thumbnail of the quarters activities.>> I'll ignore your polemics. After reading maybe a couple of thousand 10Q's, I think I know what they are supposed to look like. Let's get to the facts. re. 10q's are not mandatory for BB stocks That's the old rule. The new rule is that to remain listed, BB stocks must file 10k's and 10Q's. If NCDR had failed to file, they would have been delisted eventually. This rule begins next month. otcbb.com So you are wrong. Of course, you are also wrong about it being illegal to short BB stocks through a US broker. back to NCDR, the notes to the financial statements of a 10Q are supposed to be accurate. In this case, Note 5 gives the impression that Baraka and Telenet were two separate acquisitions and that Baraka was acquired for only $510 k. If that impression is not correct, as you claim, then the filing contains a misstatement of a material fact. I assume this misstatement was the result of sloppiness rather than design. Management of the company could win major prizes for sloppiness ... how else could they operate a publicly traded company without knowing that all their outstanding shares were not properly registered due to a messed-up certificate of incorporation.