Bourque Industries Inc (BORK)

[Flatcat]

Concern about Dark Status. I researched a little about why BORK is dark given that we have a good product and large potential sales. This was very enlightening.

The quantifiable costs of complying with Sarbanes-Oxley, which do not include lost productivity due to compliance efforts, have proven much higher than originally estimated by the SEC and are disproportionately higher for smaller issuers relative to their revenues and net income.

A 2004 survey in Corporate Insight, Spring 2004, "The Costs of Complying with Governance Rules," estimated that small companies with annual revenues between $25 million to $99 million suffered Sarbanes-Oxley compliance costs of $740,000 and 3,080 company hours expended on compliance efforts; companies with annual revenues between $500 million to $999 million (a minimum 10-fold increase) incurred compliance costs of only $1 million and 6,900 company hours.

These costs are in addition to the pre-existing costs of being public and the new costs imposed by Regulation FD. A study by Foley & Lardner LLP, The Cost of Being Public in the Era of Sarbanes-Oxley (May 19, 2004), estimated that the average cost of being public in 2004 was $2.86 million, a 130 percent increase from the same study conducted in 2002.

What would you like John Bourque to spend his time and money on? Compliance with reporting requirements or making us money?

See http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Considering+going+dark%3f+A+company+choosing+to+delist+and+deregister...-a0155144350 for full discussion about going dark.