RRM, thanks for the article. I hope everyone reads it. I have read similar articles but this is very easy to read and quite succinct.
If you have been reading my posts, a lot of them have alluded to this very thing, not in these specifics, but toward the collusive MM's. To me, just watching the daily quotes move, how they are moved, and by whom is a lesson that I believe becomes self evident as you watch.
You might also have read in my posts that the SEC is not my favorite agency. With the DTCC, at the end of 2005, forgave all of the naked shorts outstanding and cost the small investors billions of dollars.
Subliminally, I percieve the stock market, as it stands, to be a very bad place for the small investor to fulfill their dreams of financial stability. It does happen but someone out of a lot of people hit the lottery also.
The only note to the SEC I have written has been through the E-Mail questions (not complaints) to inquire about PLNI's current SEC status. That should not have contributed to any investigation because it only goes to a staff person to find a search answer and respond. I feel that PLNI is not registered because if they were, the '05 unaudited statements wouldn't satisfy the SEC filing requirements for timely filing and a suspension would probably have occured. I find no record at the SEC of a suspension.
Believe me, I do want this company to succeed, I want the current shareholders to recover their investments and I want to be a part of the upward swing again when the stock takes off.
And, I still believe, based on the first quarter of '06, that the company has made a good start toward establishing a going concern that will become profitable. I would like to see PLNI doing a bit more to further their own image and be pro-active in the market place. I still feel that one distributor is not the best strategy for any company. The only thing worse, IMHO, is a single supplier.
This is all just my opinion.
And, thanks again for the article.
AI
