Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Best of luck to all.
Selling the shell is the only liquidation event I see available for the company. All the technologies Signet has some rights to still require significant development before any commercialization work can begin.
The clock is ticking and the opportunities for profit are fading.
Public declarations about Substantial Doubt over a business still being around 12 months from now is a caution I pay attention to.
But if you think buying shares, will result in profit via a sale of the shell, then keep loading and good luck.
And take on 20,000,000 existing shares? That's a lot of dilution.
I appreciate selling the shell is a liquidity event available to the company. It's something Ernie was keen on talking about - that the shell itself had great value.
Time will tell.
But the company has publicly disclosed "SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT" about being in business 12 months from now.
Definition of Substantial - of considerable importance, size, or worth.
OR
real and tangible rather than imaginary.
Definition of Doubt - a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction
Caveat Emptor. Investing in a company with $0 revenues and $0 profits in 15+ years of operation is an uphill climb for an ROI.
But good luck to those buying shares.
Almost $8,000,000 in accumulated deficit is a big impediment.
But yes, they could sell the business or the shell, but outside of the structure, the company isn't generating revenue or profits.
"These matters raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern for twelve months from the issuance date of this report."
Did anyone else notice this sentence appeared twice in the 10-Q?
Substantial doubt that the company will be in business 12 months from now.
When a company publicly says "substantial doubt" exists about the company's ability to stay afloat, believe them.
This is the kind of public CYA statement managers make before closing the business in a way that minimizes any personal risk.
Go ahead and buy more SIGN. Personally, I look for investments that don't have "substantial doubt" about surviving the next 12 months.
Public Company CEO's CAN'T give information to individual shareholders that has not been previously disclosed publicly.
CEO's have to provide consistent information to everyone so that the public is acting on the same information in regards to investing.
To do otherwise, is called "inside information."
Ernie seemed too loose in his willingness to share company information with individuals who reached out to him.
Some posters on this board said that Ernie talked about progress on different technologies. Progress that had not been publicly disclosed.
I'm guessing that his attorney daughter understands this and will be limiting interaction with individual shareholders during her service as interim.
A Divorce / Family Law Attorney?
Do divorce / family law attorney's work on technology licensing deals?
The LinkedIn profile of the new CEO / CFO says:
The value of reaching common ground within families contributes significantly to a clearer future for everyone involved. With children involved, household and custody decisions can be hard to reach. My skills in family law deal with child support and child custody, divorce, prenuptial/postnuptial agreements, property division, and all other related matters. It is not unheard of that parents have trouble coming to agreements with each other and choosing the right attorney is the key in the construction of balance.
This board has posts to radio interviews conducted by Tom Donaldson, who was described as the President of Signet despite never showing up in SEC filings.
So why didn't Tom Donaldson assume the CEO role?
Regardless, a divorce / family law attorney, despite her best intentions, isn't the expertise the company needs.
Why does this page continue to list REAP as an asset of Signet?
The developer of REAP partnered with Ernie to raise working capital for the technology. Signet didn't raise a dime and the rights were terminated by Dr. Conn.
The Investors Hub page describes Signet as a Media / TV company because that's what the company was founded as over 15 years ago.
When that business failed to develop, they moved onto various "developing technologies".
The company has one employee. They have a few hundred square feet of office on Worth Ave in Palm Beach.
A one man company with essentially an executive suite office doesn't have the expertise and resources needed to develop industrial technology.
Good Question. Signet has no working prototype for any technology so whether or not the technologies work is an unanswered question.
What Signet has done is obtain licensing rights of intellectual property developed by FIU.
Professors at FIU patented these ideas but have done zero product development toward commercialization. That's where these technologies sit, at an idea stage that has been patented.
Read the SEC Filings. Signet has spent ZERO working capital on the development of any technology. All they are doing is looking for a major company to step in and take over. Which is the exact same thing the licensing office of FIU did (and failed) before giving the options to Signet.
All of these technologies have substantial barriers to entry.
They need engineers, materials and expertise to take the patents and create a working prototype to show the technologies actually work, not just theoretically.
They need to secure raw materials in a tight Supply Chain. Some of the raws needed for the battery or graphene deicer are rare earth minerals. What is the supplier?
They need real manufacturing and technology development expertise and they need a lot of cash to fund all of this speculative work.
Signet's CEO is over 80 years old and has zero experience in industrial manufacturing. For much of his career, the CEO was a boxing and event promoter.
He promotes these technologies as the best thing since sliced bread with smoke and mirrors.
He signs up a distributor in South Korea for a product that doesn't exist.
The news is something a promoter will use to pump things up, but is not a sign of progress.
We have salespeople! Says the hype, without mentioning they have no products for the distributor to sell.
The only thing that drives Signet stock up is speculation from a handful of people who think this is a lottery ticket.
The reality is that Signet is like most lottery tickets, it's worthless.
If you can make some money selling at 35 cents, do it.
I know some here expect a $3 share price. If it happens it will be for a brief period of time since the company has zero revenues let alone profits.
It will be based on some promotion by the company that fools people into thinking there is something real.
As I've said multiple times, Caveat Emptor.
Penny is not denying the facts.
Sign announced South Korean sales distribution before they have a product developed to distribute.
How is signing up a sales group who has nothing to sell progress?
S. Korea Sales Distribution before a product exists.
Read the actual words of this press release.
"exclusive South Korean territorial distribution rights to all of Signet's Graphene products that will be developed."
That will be developed. In English, that means they haven't started the product development effort yet.
So before they have "developed a product" they have a sales distributor in South Korea.
Anyone care to ask Ernie what the timeline is for "Signet's Graphene products that will be developed"?
Smoke and mirrors is all Signet offers.
No product development partners. No revenues, no profits. Only announcements of Distribution Partners for a company that has zero products to distribute.
Shaking a finger?
It's called telling the truth.
Aquahoya said he'll make money when the stock does a speculative run up.
Good for him.
As long as people understand any money made will be flipping shares during speculative run ups rather than real business progress, then we're all good.
Good luck to all with the SIGN lottery tickets!
I post here to try and help people avoid losing their hard earned money.
I've had enough exposure to Signet to believe it's a pig in poke because a real business has revenues. In 15 years, Signet has not collected one dollar from a customer. That's zero revenue in 15 years.
The company has jumped from one industry and technology to another without finding their first dollar of revenue.
If that's the case with FIU, then what is Signet doing?
Universities fund academic researchers who come up with patentable ideas. That's where University funding ends.
University budgets do not include working venture capital to fund speculative product developments that have no guarantee of success.
Universities patent technologies then find someone who wants to license the patent and fund the development of the technology into a sellable product.
FIU couldn't find anyone to license these patents and eventually settled on Signet to see if Signet could find the partner willing the fund product development and commercialization.
Every cent spent on product development (working prototypes) and commercialization is at risk with zero guarantee of return.
That's the reality of university developed patents.
In Signet's 15 year history, they have never licensed a technology or secured the first dollar of revenue for any of their other technologies - 4D TV, Sports Promotion, etc.
With no successes over the past 15 years, what makes you think a company with one employee who is over 80 years old will find a large company to license a technology that doesn't even have a working prototype.
And if a working prototype of the battery existed, wouldn't that be what is featured on social media? Actual video of the battery powering some electric devices?
Keep talking about thin float and all the "technicals" you want.
Signet has not achieved one commercial / business accomplishment over 15 years. The only people making money on SIGN are selling shares they bought at 15 cents to others for 25 cents.
1000% Correct. Yet Signet doesn't have the expertise, capital, engineering or fabricating experience to create a working prototype, which is why this "play" is so far fetched.
Signet holds options on technology that is still a concept. Corporations need proof of concept confirmed before looking at investing or acquiring a product.
Mentioning that he is in conversation with THREE companies and has signed NDA's? Where are the public disclosures by Signet that the company has signed NDA's with three possible European partners?
If you can't show the public disclosures of Signet announcing signed NDA's with possible partners, then your conversation with Ernie could easily be considered providing insider information.
That conversation is a violation of SEC regulations.
CEO's of public companies cannot make specific comments about business prospects in private conversations that are not publicly known. They can repeat what is public, but specific information on progress that has NOT been disclosed publicly is a violation.
That's the foundation of insider trading. One person knowing information not available to the public. Signet's CEO gave information that should have been reserved for quarterly filings or some public announcement so that all shareholders are operating on the same information.
Speaking individually to one shareholder and giving specific information on progress made that is not public is illegal and shows the amateurish approach of this company.
Signet has been in business for 15 years and has yet to receive it's first dollar of revenue. Signet is a public company who's CEO seems willing to provide insider information to private individuals without regard to the regulations around the disclosures.
Trump has a better chance of being sworn in as President later this month than Signet has actually selling their "options" to these unproven, still in concept phase technologies.
Is there a working prototype of the Battery?
Is there a working prototype machine that makes the deicer?
Nope.
How are social media posts a sign of something good?
Signet has about 24 people total following all of their social media accounts. Sending social media posts to a handful of people is supposed to generate a multi million dollar partnership? How?
There was a guy 6,7 years ago selling a bogus commercial financing plan called NetLife Financial. Anthony Baratta was the principal who promoted a revolutionary Collateralized Mortgage Obligation financing plan.
A variety of companies and real estate developers paid a $15,000 Escrow Deposit to start the loan process. Within a couple hours of the deposits hitting the "escrow account" the money was gone and no loan ever funded.
Anthony Baratta and Net Life Financial have never closed one loan to anyone's knowledge, but has been sued by many.
NetLife Financial was big on social media posts bragging about this accomplishment or that milestone.
On social media, they talked about the opening of their new offices in Washington DC. I happened to be in DC shortly following the announcement of the DC office. I went to the address and neither the building manager or the leasing company had every heard of NetLife Financial. I then went to the previous address listed, which was a PO Box in a DC government building.
When I read a post from Signet, it sounds an a lot like Anthony Baratta.
Real businesses do.
Fake businesses post on social media.
Caveat Emptor
Is there a working prototype of the InCharge Battery?
Does anyone know?
One would think Signet would add a picture of the battery if a prototype existed. In reading the SEC documents, there is no mention of any proof of concept prototype.
Does anyone know?
Signet Social Media posts are worthless.
Signet has SIX followers on Instagram, FOUR followers on Twitter and maybe 10 on Facebook.
Posting on social media to all of Signet's two dozen followers is a worthless exercise.
Real multinational companies who are the kind of partner Signet seeks are not searching the social media of companies with less than 25 followers to find the next product they want to acquire.
Signet's CEO has not closed one technology licensing deal in his career.
Pretending that social media posts to less than 25 followers will yield a corporate technology partner is an example of Signet following a "strategy" that is strategy in name only.
Signet Social Media posts are worthless.
Signet has SIX followers on Instagram, FOUR followers on Twitter and maybe 10 on Facebook.
Posting on social media to all of Signet's two dozen followers is a worthless exercise.
Real multinational companies who are the kind of partner Signet seeks are not searching the social media of companies with less than 25 followers to find the next product they want to acquire.
Signet's CEO has not closed one technology licensing deal in his career.
Pretending that social media posts to less than 25 followers will yield a corporate technology partner is an example of Signet following a "strategy" that is strategy in name only.
The Instagram Gram post to 7 people was a worthless exercise.
Just like everything else Signet does. There is no activity toward building revenues and profits, which is what for profit business do.
Thinking that posting the technologies on social media will generate a licensing partner, shows no real understanding of how business acquisitions occur.
The CEO may be well intended but at more than 80 years of age and no experience in any of the industries they have a license, or experience in licensing technologies, Signet is a dead man walking.
And what value does Signet bring to the party? That's nothing.
Any buyer interested in these technologies won't pay a premium for anything Signet does.
7 Total Followers of Signet on Instagram
Yet some here think a posting on social media site with next to no followers is an indication of some real business activity.
The company has generated ZERO dollars of revenue.
The company owns ZERO assets.
The company has some limited rights to license technologies to other companies, but the company itself has no personal experience with any of the technologies they are now trying to license.
Every patent the company is trying to license is still under development with significant money and regulatory approvals needed to bring the product to market.
The company has successfully licensed ZERO technologies in it's history.
The company has zero Full Time, paid employees.
But hey, this worthless stock is now selling for ONE CENT. Great opportunity to dollar cost average and pick up some more shares on the cheap!
The SEC Filings reveal misrepresentations by Signet.
Last year Signet sends out this press release about the In Charge Battery
April 03, 2019, 11:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
PALM BEACH, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–“We acquired all rights to this invention,” says Ernest W. Letiziano, CEO SIGN. “It provides a compact magnetic-based battery device that offers: a large number of cycles a long storage time and an instant charging time. We call it: ‘InCharge’ This is truly a complete and independent unit… In and of Itself.”
Yet when you read the SEC filings, this is how the company describes their "rights" to the technology.
2.1 FIU hereby grants to Company an option to exclusively license the Patent Rights in the Field of Use, on a royalty-bearing, limited term basis, including the right to sublicense, (“Option Rights”). Execution of a license agreement under the Option Rights by FIU is subject to Company.
The Press Release says "we acquired all rights to this invention" but the SEC filings say "FIU hereby grants to Company an option to..."
Granting an option is NOT "acquired all rights to this invention".
Someone explain to me how the language used in the Press Release doesn't misrepresent the company's position?
But even better, the option on the Battery EXPIRED in March so Signet has no rights to this battery technology today.
To Quote Signet's SEC filing:
WE CURRENTLY DO NOT OWN ANY PATENTS OR HAVE ANY LICENSES FOR USE OF PATENTS. WE HAVE SECURED OPTIONS TO ACQUIRE LICENSES.
The company says in Press Releases that the company "acquired all rights to this invention" when the SEC filings say the company only has an option to acquire a license.
When you look at each option, the deal signed by Signet has expired or will in a couple months. By 10/31, EVERY SIGNET OPTION WILL HAVE EXPIRED.
If that's not a red flag, what about the 10 million shares of unregistered stock sales made by the company in the last 18 months?
People here talk about a thin float. What about 10 million new unregistered shares?
The SEC filings tell all.
And the company is using Covid as an excuse for the lack of any tangible progress.
Real multinational companies will not negotiate with Signet because Signet brings zero value to the deal.
I shall bow out gracefully
Since it's obvious my perspective is far different than everyone else on this board.
I wish everyone well and good luck with your Signet shares.
1) Where am I lying? Dr. John Conn MD is the inventor and owner of REAP and signed a time limited option agreement with Signet that expired last year. Signet has zero rights or connection to REAP today. If you think I'm lying, show evidence to the contrary. Did Signet mention REAP in the SEC filings? No. Why? Maybe because their rights expired.
2) The SEC filings said Signet signed a one year option agreement in March 2019. A one year option signed in March 2019 would expire in March 2020, correct? If the company successfully signed an extension, wouldn't they disclose that instead of listing the agreement as a 12 month deal signed in March 2019? Where is the lie?
3) Signet owns no technology. Signet owns no I.P. Signet has a handful of limited time options to secure a license. Those are facts.
Prove how I am lying.
Signet Technology Rights have Expired or soon will be.
The FEC filings reveal the company owns nothing in relation to the technologies it has been touting. More specifically, the company details in the SEC filings that they have been signing option agreements with a Florida university or others for a 6-12 month term to secure a license.
To quote the SEC Filings:
WE CURRENTLY DO NOT OWN ANY PATENTS OR HAVE ANY LICENSES FOR USE OF PATENTS. WE HAVE SECURED OPTIONS TO ACQUIRE LICENSES. THE BUSINESS LINES DESCRIBED BELOW ARE HIGHLY DEPENDENT UPON OUR ABILITY TO EXERCISE OUR OPTIONS TO SECURE LICENSURE IN THE TECHNOLOGIES. IN ORDER TO ACQUIRE THE LICENSES, ENGAGE IN PREPARATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMERICIALIZATION AND MARKETING OF THE TECHNOLOGIES LISTED BELOW WILL REQUIRE THAT THE COMPANY RAISE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF CAPITAL.
The option for the Grapene De-Icer was for six months and was signed in November 2018. The option for the De-Icer Technology expired last year.
The In Charge Battery option was for 12 months and was signed in March of 2019. The option for the In Charge Battery expired in March of this year.
The REAP medical device was an option agreement for six months that could be extended to 9 months total. The option agreement for the REAP technology expired last summer.
Of the remaining technologies - the mouth guard, the melanoma detection device, etc. it seems the options on these technologies will all expire within the next 3-6 months.
Signet is sinking
The SEC Disclosures reveal a number of things, namely, that Signet has no equity in any of the technologies they promote.
The listed assets include cash, prepaid expenses and subscription receivables. If they owned the patents, they'd be able to book some value for the patents as an asset. Additionally, they'd mention the asset ownership somewhere but don't.
To quote the SEC Filings:
"We do not currently hold any intellectual property."
AND
"We anticipate generating losses and, therefore, may be unable to continue operations in the future."
AND
"As reflected in the accompanying consolidated financial statements, the Company had no revenue generating operations. In addition, there is a working capital deficiency of approximately $342,000, accumulated deficit of approximately $7,500,000 and a stockholder’s deficiency of approximately $332,000 as of December 31, 2019. This raises substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The ability of the Company to continue as a going concern is dependent on the Company’s ability to raise additional capital and implement its business plan."
Question - What are people actually investing in with this company?
They don't own a thing and at best he's trying to act as a broker for some stale IP that hadn't had traction.
SEC Filings....
So the filings can't be made because Signet's Palm Beach office is closed.
Yet every other public company still has to report financials to the SEC, coronavirus or not. Has there been any delay given to public companies and their SEC reporting requirements? Not that I can find.
Only one person works at Signet's Worth Ave office, the CEO. Financials are digital records. And with zero sales over the past few years, Signet's financials should be fairly simple. Why can't these digital files be submitted while working from home or other non-public location?
Reports are submitted to the SEC electronically.
The company has said getting current with the SEC is priority #1. They said the SEC filings would be complete before year end 2019.
We're about to start May 2020 and the company still has not filed the needed information to become current, despite these filings being priority #1.
The beaches in FL are re-opening.
How many more months will investors on this board accept as reasonable to complete SEC filings?
Real companies stay current with the SEC. Caveat Emptor
Where are the SEC Filings?
I thought they were to be completed by end of March. Getting these filings up to date is more important to the business than bringing on another technology.
More concerning is this quote from the Signet CEO in his recent announcement about the Sterilal acquisition.
He states: "Presently, we are seeking funds to identify a testing facility, engage scientists..."
If Signet needs to seek funds "to identify a testing facility", then they are broke.
A simple internet search will provide many licensed reference labs who conduct GLP efficacy testing for disinfection products. Yet Signet doesn't know enough about validating disinfection properties to even know that a google search would identify all the testing facilities they need.
And once again, they are bringing on a product that will need third party validation and Federal EPA approval as a disinfectant BEFORE they can sell one widget, if they plan to sell the product claiming a disinfectant kill against COVID-19 or any other organism.
One final comment. The disinfection business is a mature industry dominated by some major players. Ecolab, Clorox, Diversy, Betco, just to name a few. Hard to believe that if Sterilal was really special, one of the big boys wouldn't have stepped up already.
When the SEC filings are caught up, my guess is that you'll see a company that doesn't have the cash needed to mail a letter.
Why isn't Signet listed as owner on the USPTO Website?
If they have "acquired all rights" then Signet should show up as owner of the patent.
If I acquired a patent, first thing I'd do is update the ownership record with the patent office so my ownership is the public record.
Just saying....
Correct, the 4D Inventor passed away.
Doesn't change the bigger question.
How many option agreements has Signet successfully funded or licensed over the last 10 - 15 years.
Can anyone find a closed deal?
Important to remember - SIGN doesn't own these patents.
All of the company's statements refer to Signet holding some kind of option with FIU for these technologies. Exactly what rights Signet holds, no one knows because they have not revealed the details of the option agreements.
When the financials are finally updated with the SEC, I believe they will show Signet has zero equity in these patents. As such, if the company successfully licenses a patent, will they receive a one time success fee or will there be some recurring revenue? No one knows.
If we're expecting a big price jump after the successful licensing of just one patent, then the question to ask is:
In the last 10-15 years, how many technologies has Signet successfully licensed or funded?
I can't find one closed deal by SIGN.
Going back over company history, they have been in TV production of some sort, had a 4D imaging biz and other technologies (like the current 3 technologies being promoted) but no closed deals.
SIGN is a public company that hasn't reported financials to the SEC in three years.
A company where I can't find evidence of revenue generating activity in the past 10 years.
While they have successfully secured option agreements on these three technologies, there is no evidence that Signet has actually closed on any option agreement they have previously secured.
I appreciate the technical analysis about the limited number of shares, etc. but at some point real revenue and profits will be what drives the share price higher and I can't find any evidence that Signet has generated real revenues or profit at anytime in the last 10 years.
CAVEAT EMPTOR
Signet Contradicts Itself over SEC filings
When publicly discussing the Audit and getting caught up with the SEC in October 2019, Signet President Tom Donaldson stated:
"Mr. Donaldson also confirmed that Signet is undergoing an audit and will be fully reporting within the next 8 to 10 weeks."
10 weeks from October would be year end 2019. We're now in Feb 2020 and no sign of fully reported financials.
You can knock my comments of being appropriate for NASDAQ not OTC, but you can't knock the fact that the Signet President said in October 2019 that the company would be fully reporting within the next 8 to 10 weeks.
We're a month and a half past the stated "8 to 10 week" timeline. When a company fails to meet their own stated timelines for important milestones, then I'm calling that a Red Flag.
Others here seem to think it's a buying signal. Then write your check and buy some more.
I'll be on the sidelines at least till we can see the SEC filings and have a true understanding of the financial position of the company and the actual rights Signet holds with the patents they are promoting.
There's a real risk Signet's financials will hurt, not help.
Everyone is expecting the updated financials to push the stock price significantly higher. Released financials increase stock prices when the results exceed expectations.
If my understanding is correct, Signet has three years of financials to get current with the SEC.
What are Signet's Gross Revenues over the past 3 years? I believe they are $0 because the company has not had any revenue generating operations that we're aware of.
What assets will the financials list?
I don't believe the patents can be included as assets because Signet only holds Options to the patents, not ownership.
Since the company has not detailed the specifics of the option agreements, we have no knowledge of what the agreements are between Signet and FIU. Could it be that FIU has granted Signet an option to find the licensing partner and will pay Signet a fee for the successful close of a licensing deal?
If yes, what is Signet's track record of signing licensing deals? I'm not aware of any deals the company has completed.
Does Signet own any other assets?
So we're talking about a company that hasn't been current with the SEC in a couple years, yet said they would be current with the SEC in 4th quarter of 2019, but failed to get current with the SEC in 2019.
What kind of cash assets does the company hold? Any other real property?
Even the InvestorsHub site describes the business of Signet as "media-television services" which has nothing to do with any of the technologies the company has options on.
As much as people are hoping for a big bump for getting current with the SEC, there is a very real downside risk as well.
My concern is that updated financials will reveal a much skinnier company that people perceive with no revenues, no profits and minimal actual assets.
If that is the case, why would the stock jump?
As Jim Kramer and Warren Buffett advise, "you need to know how a company makes money and profits."
Updating the financials will reveal a lot, but it may not be the "good news" everyone is anticipating.
Where will Signet revenue come from in 2020?
I see many posting how 2020 can be a big year for Signet and I agree. When I read the CEO's message and look at the technologies, it doesn't appear that 2020 will be a year where the technologies are generating real sales due to the unfinished product development all of the patents have to some extent.
For example, let's say Signet successfully licenses the de-icer technology to someone. I believe Boeing and Airbus will require significant testing (paid for by the owner of the de-icer) before allowing the product to be used on their planes, meaning actual sales are down the road after selling the license.
Each patent has product development still required as best as I can see.
So outside of some cash included in the license sales, where do people see revenue coming in 2020?
Patent Ownership
My other main question about this company are the patents and what ownership rights Signet holds.
When I look up the patents on the USPTO website, Signet is not listed on any patents as an assignee.
If they acquired all the ownership of these patents, wouldn't that show up on the Patent Office website database of patents, ownership, etc?
Does someone know what rights / ownership Signet holds for these varied patents?
SEC Audit?
On Sept 25, 2019, Signet publicly announced:
Palm Beach, FL. September 25, 2019. Mr. Ernest Letiziano, CEO of Signet International Holdings, Inc., announced today that an audit of the company will begin September 30. Signet and its subsidiaries will undergo an audit of its financial statements for 2017 and 2018.
The audit, conducted by the independent PA firm of Salberg & Company, is anticipated to take no more than 4-6 weeks, with a report issued by mid-November 2019.
This is excellent news for investors in Signet (OTC: SIGN). Once completed, Signet will bring its filings with the SEC current by the end of the year.
Then on November 20, 2019, the company announced:
Palm Beach, FL. November 20, 2019. The Signet Board of Directors agreed with the Audit Committee and the recently appointed CFO to proceed with Year-End audits which consolidated statements for both 2018 and 2019 in one comprehensive filing compilation.
Couple of questions.
1) What happened to the audit conducted by Salberg & Co. that was supposed to be completed a month ago?
2) With 11 days left in 2019, it appears Signet will not "bring its filing with the SEC current by the end of the year." Has the company explained why?
3) The November press release said they were consolidating both 2018 and 2019 financials into one comprehensive filing. The September press release said an audit beginning September 30 would review 2017 and 2018, yet the most recent press release said the audit is for 2018 and 2019.
These statements by the company don't provide a consistent answer.
What years are being audited? 2017-2018? 2018-2019? 2017-2019?
I'd appreciate any insights folks can provide regarding the ongoing audit and when the company will be current with the SEC.
Does anyone know?
What does Signet own?
Does anyone know what the ownership position is of Signet in regards to these different patents?
When I go on the Patent Office website and search the patent database, none of the patents show Signet as an assignee. If Signet owned these patents, wouldn't that ownership show up in the patent database?
The patents developed by FIU show the university as the owner.
ConnREAP shows the owner is the inventor, Dr. Conn.
None of the patents list Signet in anyway.
Additionally, didn't company leadership say they would be up to date with the SEC (for 2018 and 2019) in November?
It appears the company has not met their own deadline of getting current with the SEC. So when will they?
Last, seems each of these patents will require significant cash to develop, along with receiving some regulatory / industry approvals.
Do you think Airbus or Boeing will allow a new de-icer to be sprayed on their planes without extensive testing and manufacturer approval?
Where is the new battery going to be manufactured? Again, where is the capital and expertise to launch the mfr of a new technology?
The mouth guard is a diagnostic tool, meaning extensive FDA approval in order to make their claims.
All of these technologies are unique and distinct. There is no symmetry between the technologies. It's not like money spent on the de-icer will have some applicability to the battery or mouth guard.
Signet failed to make their own announced deadline to get current with the SEC.
The USPTO database doesn't show Signet with any ownership of the patents listed.
So what does this company own? Do they have any kind of revenue?
Does anyone know?