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.
Haven't you been saying "no filings sub-penny" for 2 weeks now?
Except the debt was resolved between TRDY and MMAC so the shell is "clean".
More like "in a meeting" or "going to a meeting" is an easy way to end the call.
What about the many other r/m plays HDOG, etc. have documented in which shareholders benefitted greatly from the merger and related runs?
The filings linked to whichever of the Stan's (Stan Larson, Stanley Larson, Stanley E. Larson), have the name spelled exactly in it.
All the filings linked to Stan Larson have "Stan Larson" somewhere in the filing.
All the filings linked to Stanley Larson have "Stanley Larson" somewhere in the filing.
All the filings linked to Stanley E Larson have "Stanley E. Larson" somewhere in the filing.
Here's the Stan Larson results- http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2079063
Here's the Stanley Larson results- http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2671205
Here's the Stanley E. Larson results- http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2077341
You can easily open each filing and do a find to see the spelling of the name matches the spelling of whichever search result you are going off of.
Not to burst anyone's bubble, but the EDGAR search is not so cut and dry as we would like it to be. This post
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57049633 is a result of some additional digging I did and the results are more inconclusive than anything else.
As of now, I have not heard back from EDGAR pertaining to my questions.
Any news from the transfer agent as of yet?
Here's the customer support link:
http://www.edgar-online.com/ContactUs/CustomerSupport.aspx
I chose "Quality of Data" as the reason for my inquiry.
I agree and am holding my shares as well. I thought it would be good to know for the future since this can't be the first or last time a name gets included as part of dd for a stock.
Additional EDGAR digging.
After seeing (and participating) the entire "will the real Stan please stand up" rigamarole, I signed up for a trial EDGAR PRO account and did some further research.
If you use the "People" search, enter "Stan" for the first name, "Larson" for the last name, and set the time period to "no limit", you get 3 results (EDGAR Person ID and associated filings in parentheses)
Stan Larson (2079063, High Plains, Food Brands, Green Plains, Trudy)
Stanley Larson (2671205, High Plains, El Capitan)
Stanley E. Larson (2077341, High Plains)
If you dig down into each of the filings, you'll find that however the name was spelled in the filing is what matches the record you clicked on. All of the filings associated with "Stan Larson" have the words "Stan Larson" spelled exactly in the filing. All the filings associated with Stanley Larson have "Stanley Larson" spelled exactly in the filing.
After this further analysis, I'd have to conclude EDGAR cannot be relied upon to differentiate between individuals of the same or similar names. It looks like Edgar assigns the PersonID to text of the name itself, not an individual. If you are Bob Smith of Toys Inc. and put your name as "Bob Smith" on the filings and on some filing for SpaceCows United, Robert Smith decides to spell his name "Bob Smith", EDGAR will return the two unrelated filings under the same name, Bob Smith.
I have opened a case with EDGAR to find out more about this.
As HDOG has pointed out, this doesn't diminish the value of the shell, and doesn't eliminate the possibility of it being the High Plain's Stan, but it's a bit disconcerting to me, at least, that EDGAR cannot be relied upon for something like this.
I suppose you immedeiately contacted the appropriate individuals at EDGAR/SEC to inform them a filing was incorrectly associated with the wrong individual and they might, you know, want to check it out and remedy it? It's not like these filings and record keeping systems have to stand up to intense scrutiny or anything like that....
EDGAR and SEC documents everywhere state that the CIK number is unqiue to individuals and entities and used to differentiate between individuals and entitites with the same or similar names. http://www.sedaredgar.com/edgar/codes.php
An EDGAR link like this one (http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2779602), has a PersonID entry which corresponds to something in EDGAR's database. Whether it is a match to the CIK or not is unknown.
If PersonID was not unique, then there would be no reason to have that field. You would run a search for "Bob Smith" and it would return all the Bob Smith's based on first name and last name fields. The only reason to have PersonID is to differentiate between unique individuals.
Since the PersonID corresponding to the High Plain's Stan Larson, also shows the filings for Trudy and other of Stan's companys, why do you believe the Trudy Stan is not the same as the High Plain's Stan?
Do you think PersonID or CIK are not unique? If so, why have we not heard about it before? Non-unique ID's are the bane of every database because they defeat the purpose of having a database in the first place.
Do you think fraud is occurring and someone is using High Plains Stan's CIK, CCC, and password to impersonate him? If so, why have we not heard about it? Certainly one of High Plain's Stan's buddies, family, or attorney would have corrected this.
Do you think EDGAR made a mistake in the filing and associated it with the wrong Stan? (Hard to do since the filing is attached to the filer and the filer must validate their identity with the CIK,CCC, and password).
So take the link and bump up the identifier by 1 or 2 or 3 or 40.
Let's bump it up 1.
http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2079064
You get filings for 3 companies. Now click any of the filings and what do you see in the middle of the address bar? A name, in this case, Dan Skolness.
Imagine that...if you do that with each filing and then do a search in the filing for Dan Skolness, his name turns up.
Let's do it again with one much later, 2079095. Click any of the filings and the name in the address bar is Paul Horowitz. Do a find in each filing and guess whose name shows up, Paul Horowitz.
You don't think that EDGAR could assign each person a unique identifier and when a filing is entered into the system, it's tied to the unique ID's of whomever is mentioned in the filing in some material way do you?
PersonID is a unique ID. Did EDGAR screw up and associate the wrong Stan with the TRUDY filing? Who knows, but it seems unlikely.
If the identifier "PersonID" does not pinpoint a specific person, what exactly does it pinpoint?
How is EDGAR incorrectly associating the wrong Stan?
If Mr. Larson is upset about "falsehoods being spread" then he better get on the horn to EDGAR and tell them they screwed up.
Since a HighPlains filing is the oldest one on the list, it makes sense the first time an individual "entered" the system, they got their ID assigned and they got them sequentially because whatever the data entry procedure was it went something like "add all of those High Plains bums to the system".
Once the ID was assigned, no reason to cease using it.
Since a HighPlains filing is the oldest one on the list, it makes sense the first time an individual "entered" the system, they got their ID assigned and they got them sequentially because whatever the data entry procedure was it went something like "add all of those High Plains bums to the system".
Once the ID was assigned, no reason to cease using it.
If you take this link:
http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/PeopleFilingResults.aspx?PersonID=2079063&PersonName=STAN%20LARSON
and cut out the "PersonName=STAN%20LARSON", you get a link that essentially says "Show me all the filing results for the person with this identifier". Based on the front-facing componnents of the database and search functionality, PersonID has to be unique or there would be no way to differentiate between Stan1,2,3.
I'll grant you there are some horrendously kludgy ways to have something like PersonID not be unique. An example would be to have an id for everybody with the same name and then use some other information like DOB or SS, to create a composite key that was unique. BUT, if that were the case, that composite key would be exposed to someone using EDGAR either in the search or results side of things.
So either it is the same Stan as in the other filings, EDGAR has mistakenly combined two individuals, or EDGAR made a colossal database error in the design of their entire system. Which one seems most likely?
Since you talked to Stan, did you do him the favor of telling him about the error in EDGAR so he could have it corrected and not be wrongly associated with any other entities?
Any professional firm, even if doing a favor for a friend, won't risk their name, reputation, and win stats unless they've done their homework.
You seem to have some difficulty with opinion and fact, gdsgds. Saying something multiple times doesn't make it true and saying what you want the truth to be doesn't make it true.
The FDA is not stupid.
This is an opinion. The FDA is every bit as smart/stupid as your average government agency. I don't think the IRS or DMV would win any awards for competence, but that's just me. In fact, if you looked at how many device manufacturer's complained about the 510k process, you could make a convincing argument the FDA is doing something wrong.
They have a huge legal deaprtment.
This is a fact. They are frequently sued by people over things they did approve and things they didn't approve. I fail to see how that affects anything here.
They refused to show me the working machine.
This is a fact. Would you expect to visit Ford's design campus and ask to see their Mustang prototype? No, you'd ask, they'd show you a mock-up and some drawings, if that.
All I saw was a 2d machine
This is an opinion. Who here among us is qualified to look at the DVIS mock-up, know its internal componnents, software design, and conclusively say "this is a 2d only machine". If someone is, schedule a trip to Burbank and see if they'll let you in.
With zip ties and transformers.
This is a fact, but not a bad one. As a prototype (and the first prototype according to Dean), the machine is designed for gantry tests and data gathering. If you've ever seen a prototype stage electronic device of any kind, you'd see all kind's of shortcuts, quick disconnects, experimental connections, etc. that are not used in production. According to Dean, the next version of the prototype is at a secure off-site facility.
From the 70's.
Transformers have not changed much since they were invented. Take apart a modern PC power supply and a guitar amplifier from 1965 and you'll see a transformer that looks pretty much the same.
It is beyond me how you can make this machine portable or move it from one room to another. It's huge, heavy, and won't go thru any door unless it's an industrial door.
This is an opinion. First, you saw the first prototype. Prototypes of electronic devices are frequently made more open/larger/easier access because they need to be for tests and modifications. Unless you tried to move it, you have no idea how heavy it is or how mobile.
The FDA was clear, the rejection is due to lack of compatability between the material presented and the field unit.
The is an opinion. Quite frankly, unless you have the NSE letter in front of you, we have no idea what the FDA's specific beef was with the DVIS.
But if it is a big name consulting firm, they won't take on a lost cause because it reduces their averages and makes them look bad.
Truth is we have no idea what characteristics led to the NSE except for what Dean has told us. Unless we see the letter, we might never know.
I've worked on numerous government projects where something is rejected because Paragraph 3 should be Paragrpah 57 and although you recieved guidance from the government agency approving Paragrpah 3 as Paragrpah 3, some other bureacrat comes along, says its wrong, and rejects it. It would be comical if it weren't such a waste of taxpayer time and money.
Not saying there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the DVIS, but to attribute NSE to the machine is assuming facts not in evidence at this point in time.
Sadly not. You can check out the 8-k directly.
Conversely, anybody who buys 200k shares of a stock based on a message board rumor has a lot of money to play with or isn't that bright to begin with (assuming it's not part of some type of manipulation).
Dean said on one of the conference calls that whenever they submit the proxy materials for SEC review, they put in a date, and when they finally get approved, the date will be adjusted to something that makes sense.
Likewise, until you have the appropriate intelligence on the enemy (heard something from the FDA), making sudden course corrections can be dangerous. If the enemy is about to surrender (SE) don't give them an opening they can exploit. If the enemy is digging in the for the long haul and lobbing shells at you (AI), then decide what strategic changes you are going to make.
Between this year and last year, a lot of things changed, including the review team.
If I were Dean, I'd play things much closer to the vest based on everything that happened. Let's say he shows the machine in real-time on a video and the share price goes to 1.50.
Then, he hears from the FDA and they say "Sorry Dean, we didn't like that video. It violates section X of the marketing regulations. You'll have to resubmit and include that video in your marketing materials."
Not saying that would happen, but there are plenty of legitimate reason for Dean to change his behavior based on the outcome of previous events, we call that "learning."
It looks like you pay for X amount of MoneyTV spots in advance so it could just be a case of not wanting to let it go to waste. As long as they have the coverage bought, they might as well try to use it.
Would you be saying the same thing if you were an investor with the company making the simple x-ray machine that took 183 days to approve?
As for the FDA not being a bunch of monkey's from Jumanji, I've attended some internal govt. agency meetings where the monkeys from Jumanji would be a brain trust compared to the people that were in the meeting and we weren't talking rocket science.
The September list is out.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpmn/pmn.cfm
The database has results up to 9/30
The only problem is that something that could be commodity hardware for a consumer, or a datacenter, or private business, may/may not be approved for use in electronic medical devices.
Would you have said the FDA was uncomfortable with the 510k for the x-ray machine that took 183 days to reache an SE decision?
The 2008 10-K/A contains language and explanations about the PMA process too. It's not like it's some giant surprise in the filing.
If you looked at the track record of the previous FDA review team, you'd see many devices crossed into the 1-2 year time-span during their tenure so that makes the DVIS just another device stuck in the food chain.
If you looked at the track record of the current FDA review team, you'd see they took 183 days to issue an SE for an x-ray machine. Taking that into account, the DVIS is not the longest device without approval until under the new teamuntil we cross that 183 days which won't be till the second week of October.
Furthermore, KingKong_Guru has shown there can be as many as 8 days of admin time from the date a decision is issued to the letter going out.
Until we hit the middle or end of October, the DVIS is well within the current FDA's pattern for device review.
According to the website, 26-30 seconds to construct the 3d image.
You would hope that would be the case, but it took April, May, and June for them to say "uhhh, could you send these files in a different format".
For all we know "no questions" means "we haven't gotten off our lazy govt. behinds to look at this paperwork"
There is an entire seperate compliance family (IEC 60601-1, UL 60601-1) and their variants that govern the componnents and other parts of electronic medical devices.
Much like the space agencies, what's late and great is not always better than what's tried and proven.
The old FDA team was corrupt and removed. Therefore, we had a "clean slate" for the April 5th submission. That's what we should be counting from.
The FDA took 183 days to issue an SE for a simple x-ray machine. That should speak volumes of how long their "due process" is.
As far as "freaking them out", yes, when you are awaiting regulatory approval, or being awarded a contract, or anything else of a fundamentally business making/breaking decision, you don't rock the boat. Simple common sense.
I'm sure the company with the x-ray machine that took 183 days to recieve SE were saying the same things. "Geez, it's only an x-ray machine, a technology that's been around for 100 some odd years."
What would you have told investors in that company if they were waiting for SE?
Let's not all forget that just because a technology is available, that doesn't mean it's ready or certified for use in medical devices.