Replies to Post #111263 onRCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

Replies to #111263 on RCC Holdings Corp fka RCCH

10/28/14 3:58 PM

Gees who is talking about required? Just asking. People makes claims but NO ONE shows credible DD.
So we are to believe there are MANY companies and yet not ONE can be shown. Out of many there ought to be a few that can be easily confirmed. Yet nada. Why Jimthorpe? We should be proud to show our value not hide it. No one is asking anyone to not believe but just show it or at least a few real businesses. Else it sure looks foolish to make claims no can support with real DD that others can confirm. Has anyone ever listed any companies that can be confirmed as successful and really ours. Private or not. Hiding behind "they are private" makes no sense. I agree they are not required to report. Not asking for that just some proof. The mother company is not private is it? We are shareholders - Part owners, there should be some responsible/reasonable disclosure.
Remember awhile back Gene backpeddled and said we are in development stages. That does not sound at all like a company with many private companies doing business.

Anvil

10/28/14 4:32 PM

#111265 RE: Jimthorpe #111263

Jim, if a company is private, then it can't be owned by a public company like RCCH. The way RCCH would own a company, what geno foolishly calls a "sole subsidiary" is by owning either 100% of the stock of that company.

In the alternative, RCCH could own a portion of a company. If RCCH owns greater than 50.1% of the company, than the sole subsidiary would be consolidated into RCCH's financials both balance sheet and income statement (i.e. it would show the revenues).

Anything less than 50% would be a minority stake and would show as an equity investment on the balance sheet, no revenues.

In order for RCCH to get cash from a minority stakes is through a divdend, which would show up on the financials.

Again, going back to the last fins filed, I saw neither.