I'm sorry you interpreted my comment as ripping the company and I did NOT say or imply GDVM is a "shell". My bad if I wasn't clear but I can't help being honest. I simply "tried" to say the following:
1) The company profile/description has not changed. They updated 1 thing to say "they have merged", from "seeking a merger". The primary objective remains the same, which is good.
2) They have previously declared 25 employees. "If" this is new to the OTCM profile, fine, but it has been declared in other otc filings. And as I said, the number makes sense considering 4 locations.
3) Finally, the shell "RISK", not "shell". The "No Shell" as been declared by Melvin since day 1. Obviously OTCM doesn't take anyone's word alone. The subject has been discussed many times here, perhaps while you were on sabbatical? The concensus is an annual audit will be required to remove the shell risk tag. I think many are expecting, or at least hoping an audit will be included with annual report, likely to come mid-April.
I knew OTC labeled it as a shell risk when I first bought shares in May. I am not the one calling it a shell, OTCM is calling it shell risk. I was hoping it would have been resolved before year end but accepted the need to wait. I'm sure I don't hold as many shares as most here claim but I have only added since May.
Would you not agree the stock can/will do so much better when that label is removed? Again, sorry I poked you. Hope this post is more clear?
