Are you trying to say that THE ONLY reason the SEC allows the ACT of 1934 to remain in effect in the first place - and the only reason that any Business Developement Company might elect to use it - is for the purpose of cheating all stockholders through undisclosed dilution?
Even if it were true, who cares!... for that's ALREADY the state of pinkyland. They DON'T NEED the ACT of 1934 down here, if they want to scam us. How many non-exempt [non-electors of the ACT] pinkies have diluted their shareholders to death, IN SPITE OF not being exempt? By all observations, it seems that no pinky is safer than another, ACT or no ACT. Regardless of "rules," you rarely know what a pink sheet stock's current S/S is, or if dilution might on its way, until after the bottom has already dropped out (to ridiculous levels).
As for ACDU, the bottom HASN'T dropped out.
If undisclosed dilution were hitting us without relent, then why is volume so low? . . .
And the share price holding up so well? . . .
Why didn't we hit triple zeroes long ago, with the rest of 'the diluters?'
Only because we're NOT one!
Budgetcuts0, I thank you for your insight and concern, and hey, I do not think your ideas and theories were stupid. In fact, I think they might apply in a good number of cases to those BDC's who do opt to abuse their rights. But I'm hoping that not every BDC is an abuser - and by the long-term action of ACDU's stock, it seems to be one of those that isn't.
Frank
AI
