Jagman.......I think the investor in small issues may feel your anger at the "system", in that it allows for the selling of phantom shares of stock that the particular investor owns.
What you are talking about is precisely why the OTCBB was formed just a few years ago, 1999, I believe.
Prior to that, the OTC in general was like the wild west. No requirement for reported financials to the SEC at all.
That all changed when the OTCBB listing came into play. At that time, the vast majority of prior OTC's wouldn't.....or didn't care to.....qualify for SEC reporting. So they remained pinksheet, non-reporting stocks.
Those wishing to comply with the SEC reporting requirements needed to file the same financial reports as all of the other exchanges, AMEX, NASDAQ, NYSE, etc.....hence the OTCBB requirements.
The OTCBB CEO's have to sign off on their reports in the very same manner as the big boys. No difference, whatsoever.
Now, if you are looking for an analogy between SEC scrutiny of big companies vs. small, here might be one for you.
Think of the IRS, and how it uses its resources to scrutinize small and big taxpayers. Something like 1% of taxpayers are audited. Naturally, the IRS uses a great deal of resources to audit the larger taxpayers. But both large and small taxpayers sign off on their returns, and both feel the responsibilities for their actions at that time.
To take the analogy one step further. How does the small taxpayer then feel if he later finds out that his tax money is being siphoned off and used illegally, while the supposed system of checks and balances is napping?
Outraged, to say the least.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
