Replies to post #97042 on DD Support Board and Research Team

[janice shell]

You'd find using Reg A+ would be much more expensive. MUCH more. Rule 144 is available for Rule 506 stock. It isn't needed for Reg A stock, because Reg A stock is free trading upon issuance. That may make it seem more desirable than 506, but it can take awhile to get 1-As deemed effective.

The SEC can't just scrap the 1933 and 1934 securities acts. They're laws, not SEC regulations. So Congress would have to see to it, and that ain't happening.

[integral]

We're using Rule 506c. We could use Reg A+ as we're still a 15d filer (voluntary). Most reporting issuers however couldn't. So I agree 506 is better, but I do see the interest in a Reg A+.

Personally, I think the SEC needs to scrap the entire Securities Act's and start from scratch. They're just too cumbersome and don't merge with modern communications or systems.

Also, it's not likely, it's required to report under Reg A+. The benefit however is that you only need to report twice a year, instead of four times. You also don't need a PCAOB auditor, or must do all that XBRL crap.

There are some benefits to Reg A+. The reduced reporting requirements when combined with Rule 144 shares, would provide a low cost alternative for a secondary market on the OTC.

Evidently, you have no clue what you are talking about.