Decision Diagnostics Corp (DECN)

[loanranger]

What's the problem? I don't get it.

From my original post:
"I'm ignoring the 2016 reverse/forward split that was designed to eliminate shareholders."

and I explained the reason for ignoring it:
"There are quirks that make any math done on the issue imperfect"


I had no other reason to even mention it and I suspect no one else would have if I hadn't.
You can't question that including it in the math would screw the math up...as it is the math is an exercise in futility anyway...and you can't question that it was designed to eliminate shareholders. Any well informed investor should recognize that a reverse split that is followed immediately by a forward split in the same ratio is designed to eliminates shareholders to enable a Form 15 filing without damaging the share price and furthermore that the purpose of a Form 15 filing is to end SEC Reporting responsibilities.


I don't understand what your complaint is. I certainly didn't deceive any potential new investors but rather left them more fully informed. I certainly told them more about that 2016 splits than Berman did and I don't remember reading any complaints on your part about that. It isn't reported in any of the press releases on the company website:
http://www.decisiondiagnostics.co/pages/news.html
It wasn't mentioned in the section of the September 30, 2016 Disclosure Statement filing that calls for the company to "List any stock split, stock dividend, recapitalization, merger, acquisition, spin-off, or reorganization either currently anticipated or that occurred within the past 12 months" either.

I don't understand your complaint. Is it that I provided Too Much Information? What is so hard to understand about this and why shouldn't I have posted it?
"My only purpose in mentioning the 2016 split and the reason for it (the elimination of shareholders to allow for a Form 15 filing), which was plain for all to see, was that it complicated the share count math...as I made clear."


Please link me to Decision Diagnostic's filing or news release announcing the August 5th, 2016 forward/reverse split that appears in the Nevada Entity Action list and the reasons for it. I couldn't find one.
But I did find a cute little story that appeared on these pages on August 2nd, three days BEFORE the Nevada File Date. It described a process that another company had gone through and it was in a response to one of your posts:
"This company went from NASDAQ to Yield Sign to Stop Sign in 120 days even after posting financials on OTC Markets. But they had too many shareholders to maintain a Form 15. So they did a 50 to 1 reverse split, eliminated all shareholders who owned less than 1 share after the reverse and eight hours later they did a 50 to 1 forward split but issued new shares only to shareholders who owned one share or more. The very next day they filed a Form 15."

To sum up:
1. Three days before the splits in question a friend of the CEO's reported a story about how another company had done the same thing. Not something like it....the exact same thing.
2. There doesn't seem to be a news release or a filing with OTCMarkets of the reverse/forward split where the company explains the reasons for it, although they are obvious (again, if you know of one please link it).
3. 16 months later, in a discussion of the mathematics of the outstanding share count as affected by the company's previous reverse splits I mention the August 2016 splits and the reasons for them and how they affect that math and that is somehow objectionable.

I find that very curious. It's almost like some people....maybe even the company itself....would like to pretend that those things never happened. A concept that is borne out by the fact that a new investor who doesn't have the experience needed to review a company's SEC filings and its State Entity Actions might never know that those things occurred.


I can't be right about that. So for a third time...please link me to the company's announcement of the reverse/forward split process and its true purpose. I REALLY couldn't find any record of one in either the OTCMarkets Reports for the period in which it occurred or in the list of Press Releases on the company's website, which seemed to me to be logical places to look.