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.
according to a reporter who contacted DT, they took the contract based on an RFQ and winning the bid. there was no "preliminary review of their books", it was purely a paper proposal and response.
Now since SPNG says they are not involved until after the filings have been made, what proof do you have otherwise other than speculation by somebody who claims they are not part of the inside. Who are the contacts from the "Big 4" that know hoe SPNG audits are being handled. - I am surprised it is not being discussed at board meetings across all firms.
wait for your 10K. in the mean time, go out and try and find the 2009 and 2010 customers that have been making up such a majority of the sales. Maybe no_BS can help you locate them.
Yea, and look how fast they are. The filing is how many months late?
who signs the filings?
In this case there are no agreements between RH and DT as SpongeTech claims.
why do you think it takes longer. they have to go back and re-look at somebody elses work.
actually i could care less if D&t take on this account. i just dislike people trying to imply they are involved in the present audit (which even the company denies) and that they are involved in the SEC investigation which is utterly ridiculous.
The fact that those comments were made as fact without ever stating that they came from D&T, and that you all fed off that is concerning.
beat me up all you want but come on guys, "I talked to the other Big 4 Firms and this is what they said". Let me ask you, how big are these other firms, how many of these big 4-firm employees ever heard of an OTCBB named Spongetech, and how many have ever spoken to D&T about it. Once you answer that, what are the odds the person here spoke to THAT person?
We are not talking GE and IBM, this is an OTCBB company with reported revenues of $50 Million ---- PEANUTS!
Is this adequate for you? This is per a SPNG Press Release.
After the submission of the 10-K/A for fiscal 2008 and the 10-K for fiscal 2009 year, Deliotte & Touche LLP will assume responsibility for the audit of the Company’s financials beginning with the fiscal 2010 year that began June 1, 2009.
You do not want two auditors disagreeing with a filing when one has to sign off on that filing. It is a conflict. No firm has two accountants on retainer at the same time auditing the same books. Certainly not a penny stock. You are acting like this is Microsoft.
SPNG is a nit to D&T it terms of business. They would not waste their time giving it all this attention. It is an OTCBB company. If you notice OTCBB companies file late more often than not because they are at the back of the bus when it comes to attention.
actually that was thru May 2009 as the $50 million 2009 revenues ended May 2009. Since May 2009 SPNG has reported the $70 Million in bookings for Q1/2010 and admitted that the growth was based on new orders and a great deal of re-sales.
do you really think that 2009 are not part of 2010? If not it speaks of the poor re-sale value of this business. personally I don't believe either exists to the extent published but that is another matter.
That is your opinion. how many other Drakeford accounts are this late in filing? Vanity Events filed months ago. why all these issues with SPNG?
what can D&T offer, they were never part of the proceedings and thus can verify nothing.
I would suggest that you stay away from spin and use common sense and logic. when you get audited on your taxes, do you call in the accountant you used or do you bring in somebody that has no idea who you are, what you do, and why you filed the way you did? Especially when there is a deadline and you are on the hot seat.
No subsequent events would not be overseen by D&T. they do not come on board until the past auditor is complete. it would be a conflict. As for an SEC investigation, NOBODY from the public sector oversees an SEC investigation. and the SEC would never bring in D&T because D&T have zero to offer. They have never audited anything.
That is great but according to SpongeTech their sales do not come from them. 83% of sales come from SA Trading, New Century and Dubai export Import and as Metter put in his PR, these are current customers. Metter also put out a PR touting repeat orders and how significant they are so we have to assume, if they are significant, that they originate from the 83% base.
Not really that hard to trace is it? After all, I am using the terms and language that Metter and Co. put into their filings and PR's. So go ahead and find these all important companies.
Th next filing is unaudited. An audited filing from D&T is many month away.
They can not start their audit until the past audits are completed as stated in the SPNG PR.
After the submission of the 10-K/A for fiscal 2008 and the 10-K for fiscal 2009 year, Deliotte & Touche LLP will assume responsibility for the audit of the Company’s financials beginning with the fiscal 2010 year that began June 1, 2009.
So by the words of SPNG, D&T do not assume responsibility of an audit until AFTER the past ones are filed. Are they filed yet?
I think that if you read what No BS stated, he never actually talked to D&T. at best it is opinion stemming from other firms, at worst it is just made up stories.
This is as far as SpongeTech was willing to state relative to D&T. I don't read into this that they are overseeing anything or that they are aiding the SEC investigation. This came from the same PR that announced the SEC investigation.
After the submission of the 10-K/A for fiscal 2008 and the 10-K for fiscal 2009 year, Deliotte & Touche LLP will assume responsibility for the audit of the Company’s financials beginning with the fiscal 2010 year that began June 1, 2009.
Yea, the big 4 firms know what D&T is doing for a penny stock audit.
Hate to bust your bubble but D&T isn't overseeing the past audits and then are in no way part of the SEC investigation. for starters, spongetech admitted such on point 1 and...SEC investigations are confidential so there is no way an audit firm that is not yet retained by the company is part of an SEC investigation. they have NOTHING to offer since they have NEVER seen the books.
It is amusing to see the spin though.
Actually if you read my posts you would know otherwise.
1. SPNG can not validate customers.
2. SPNG has been diluting the heck out of the stock and RME and the insiders have failed to file their holdings.
3. Reported sales growth is entirely overseas and yet no major overseas advertising seen.
4. Conflict of interests galore between RME and SPNG.
5. Questionable past of RME principles and stock promoters associated with this company.
6. Corporate audits have been completed by a firm who lost their license for failing to properly vet the sales data and business operations.
7. No filings since February and a gag order on TA.
8. Lots of misleading and insider information flow being transmitted over PM and e-Mails.
Would you like to discuss what what you have to offer to dispel any or all of these concerns?
rod, hate to disappoint but your comments are not accurate. Big companies discuss their contracts in detail. The fact that SPNG did in fact disclose their customers allows for people to conduct investigations to achieve greater accuracy on what is being reported. If you understand how a hedge fund works, they claim that this is the added in depth research they conduct.
But with all this speculation, research went beyond simply Google searching SPNG customers. Reporters called the company for contact info. Reporters called competitors for information (typically competitors would at least be AWARE of competitor customers even if they do not have any sales thru them). US Nation wide corporate searches were conducted. And yet these names appeared no where. Not only do they not show up with a web site, they do not show up by any mention from ANY OTHER Internet posting. That is a distinct red flag.
Due Diligence in an investment is to understand where your sales go.
Nope, no way. You need to learn how revenue is generated and how payments are made.
Bookings in June do not draw cash in June. Booking in June creates sales at a later date and payments (Net 30, 60, 90) later.
take a look at the November 2008 to February 2009 filings and take a look at Revenues reported and cash on hand. If you are to buy back stock it HAS TO COME from cash on hand to be of any value.
you really need to keep up.
If you believe the SPNG management, we already know that the difference between February and May is somewhere around $18 Million revenue and $3.5 Million Profits before taxes. They already put out an unaudited PR on their numbers.
Now when you consider their year ($50 Million Revenue; $10 Million Profit) you are also informed that the company borrowed $12 million from RME at a cost of 987 Million shares. This validates that operations can not support cash flow. So with cash burn increasing, and a steady line on Accounts Receivable due and Inventory for the first 9 months, there is nothing to support this radical change in cash flow. This change would also have to come at a time when expenses were increasing.
Hate to disappoint but when you have inventory it it fluid, You consume to meet present orders and you replenish to cover future orders. with all these sales they received in June, they had to INCREASE inventory to cover the larger quantity of future orders. Inventory is not a source of capital, only a source of future sales revenues.
as for pre-paid advertising, that is not capital that is returned. It is advertising for future product. You can not buy back shares using monies from pre-paid advertising.
So the fact that Drakeford had their license revoked is not an indication of a serious breach of responsibility.
I believe that AA signed off on sales in ENRON that could not be confirmed did they not?
Spino,
You are just playing a shell game. Start from the beginning.
1. How does RME survive if they lend money at zero interest rate and indefinitely?
2. With what capital does SPNG buy back the shares (even at face value). They issued $12 Million in face value (40% discount) and from what we know between February 2009 and May 2009 Accounts receivable without expenses could not cover that burden.
3. If SPNG were to drain all accounts receivable into buying back shares (already proven impossible)what money is used for inventory to manufacture new product, what money is used for the media blitz, and what money is used to cover Dicon investment?
4. The cancellation written into the February filing allowed for only five weeks to purchase and cancel shares. How much in A/R would take place in that period based on a history of A/R profile?
The numbers just don't add up.
Harvard,
could you expand that line of thought and address how the February 2009 bottom line and future sales for 2009 (presented by SPNG) could in no way finance a cancellation of shares and the purchase of Dicon without re-tapping the LOC out of RME.
You may want to address accounting issues when the sales are reportedly to customers that can not be located on this planet.
Good guess except the SPNG filings claim that 83% came from SA Trading, Dubai Export Import, and New Century.
I have no way to answer your question. You are talking about audits done by Drakeford when Drakeford lost their license for not doing the background checking.
Do you want to tell me how to contact these major distributors and tell me why they do not show up representing SPNG business or any other? If you can't find this major distributor, how did SPNG find so many unknowns that people in the business never heard of.
There isn't an ounce of proof in any of your comments.
D&T has stated specifically that they are not participating in the Audits. NY Post stated such AND SpongeTech changed their language to take away such implications.
Headroom is what you want it to be. In this case it was clearly defined as margin between A/S and O/S. In your house it is defined by the space between your head and the ceiling.
RME is not a subsidiary of SpongeTech and RME has their own investors. No Bank gives up money at zero interest and ties up that capital. RME would not do so either. Since you can not prove the cost relationship with RME your claims become baseless.
Legit Customers? SpongeTech was requested by a news service to provide for verification. They did and the results are now public. ENRN's customers were once part of public filings and look where they ended up.
I will not get into your personal credentials because they can not only not be validated but it is a violation of TOU.
Actually no and it was sent to me.
Did you vet the SpongeTech PR before you discussed it? Have you located their customers before you discuss their sales? You are aware that in a PR and an SEC filing the SEC does not actually validate for accuracy correct? When questions arise on accuracy do you investigate or simply dismiss.
If you can cite a reason to believe that list is in fact inaccurate I will research it the way I researched the validity of SpongeTech clients.
You know, I keep looking at those lists and see issue dates and cancel dates. You cancel a cert at a TA level when you sell the share and the cert has to be converted to new ownership.
The Share Issuance List identifies that shares were issued to CSH Advisors. They seem to have a checkered past. (1.8 Million on 6/25)
http://sharesleuth.com/a/history-and-mystery/49/
I have no way of validating.
It is linked.
Why did SPNG issue this company 17 Million shares on 6/24/2009
http://www.diomedestorage.com/about.aspx
source :
http://spngbane.angelfire.com/index.html
Provide them with this as well.
But SpongeTech's replacement auditor, Robison Hill & Co., doesn't appear to be in the best standing with the PCAOB, either.
In a report earlier this year, the auditing watchdog blasted the Utah firm for numerous "audit deficiencies." The PCAOB determined that Robison "did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion" on its clients' financial statements.
Metter acknowledged the report to The Post, saying he and his team "didn't know that" when they hired Robison in July. He said SpongeTech hired Deloitte & Touche to "oversee" Robison's work for 2008 and 2009, and to take over. Metter also said that SpongeTech has asked the SEC not to penalize it for the late filing.
Isn't the concerns over R&H the reason SpongeTech claims they are going to D&T? that was what Spongetech stated anyway.
at the O/S and PPS these are hardly investments.
finta, "I believe" this is a scam. Enron had a product but it did not live up to the books they presented.
The fact that SPNG's major customers can not be located is a red flag that implies that this is not the product they present it to be. Does it cell at CVS, Walgreens, etc...yes but to no level supportive of their books.
SPNG is advertising hard but ENRON had a ball field named after it and Enron was a fraud. advertisements are supposed to somehow qualify a companies business but in a con game, advertisements and trivial sales are the con.
Can I guarantee I am 100% right. Of course not. The same way long holders can not prove that this is a real business. This type dialogue is supposed to be used as education to sort out future problems. heck, I learned a great deal in investigating this one. that is what makes this fun.
my analogy was with regards to A/S and O/S so your comment is confusing.
as for the 10K, D&T will have nothing to say about it. not their quarter. This filing will be made by an accountant that is on the verge of losing their license.
that is my belief as well. it is funny that nobody wants to discuss how they were bought back and with what capital. why not? It is the very same silence you get when you discuss their major customers.
My data is better than yours, Everybody can see that. A response of 'wait until the 10k" means you haven't anything to hang your hat on.