| To: rjm2 who wrote (1175) | 10/12/2000 10:11:36 AM | | From: Evil Speculator (tm) | of 1426 | | | [T]here are a few asset plays & undervalued stocks amongst the crap.
That's true, there are a bunch of banks and other genuine, established companies on the OTCBB and in the Pinks. And yes, some legitimate firms use shells to go public.
In my opinion, though, that number isn't large enough to be worth the price that many investors have paid for some of the other issues listed there in the past. I strongly believe that the listing requirements need to be raised for both the Pinks and the OTCBB. The legitimate OTCBB and Pink issues also aren't enough to prove to me that a virtually listing-free equity trading environment is, in any way, a "necessity."
As I see it, if venture capitalists - those who make their living assessing and risking their funds on new, largely untested companies - wouldn't invest in a particular firm...and, that same firm cannot qualify for even NASDAQ SC inclusion...and if no investment bank (and there are some very small but well-heeled and hungry ones out there) can or will find any sort of funding/investment, however primitive, for it...then, in my personal opinion, the firm simply hasn't reached a point where this oft cited need for funding is justified.
Who ever proposed that an equity listing was in any, way a corporation's "right"; a right that with regard to most of the specific issues in question, supercedes minimum tests of financial wherewithall?
Where - in the S&P100/500/600; in the Nasdaq 100; in any of the Dow Jones averages; in the Russell 2000; or even on the NASDAQ, NYSE, or AMEX - has flimsy paper ever evolved into a strong corporate interest? I'm sure there are a few; but: in percentage terms, as compared to those who've lingered on the OTCBB or in the Pinks indefinitely, and those who've delisted or slid down to a fraction of their original value, I'd bet the numbers aren't compelling, to say the least.
Raising the OTCBB and Pink sheet minimum inclusion requirements - even if just somewhat below what NASDAQ SC requires - will faciliate the always-beneficial kicking in of competitive forces, will protect investors, and overall serve to free up regulators' time.
I strongly object to any assertion that either (a) some emerging business requirement will not be met if there is no OTCBB/pink sheet-type facility in the markets; and/or (b) that some brilliant, new idea may not see the light of day for the lack of what amounts to a "come-as-you-are" home for equity issues.
LPS5 |
| | Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker | Stock Discussion ForumsShare | Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1) |
|
