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.
finta, I use the terms you cite because like all here there is no 10% proof of anything. The longs can cite all they want but there is not a person here who knows what the share structure is, what the next 10K will say, etc... I will not get into any greater detail because it would be a TOU as I am finding out.
That being said, I have concerns about SPNG and their business operations. I did not go public with my concerns immediately but did so only after spending a great deal of time researching. SPNG claimed loudly that this was a NSS issue and it peaked my interests. research did not support that claim and thus (being anti-NSS) I had to dispel the rumors so that real NSS can be resolved.
I would ask any long here to shut me up by proving that the customers SPNG sells to are real. the fact that nobody has ever been able to do that reeks of fraud. I see the advertisements but advertisements mean nothing if the sales are not real and by SpongeTech's own filings 83% of their sales were to 3 companies that nobody can find. If these companies are great at sales and marketing products why can't they be found and why doesn't their name appear with reference to anybody but SpongeTech.
Come on bwog, the filings and the PR's do not define how they financed the buyback and cancellation. Tell me what you think the cost to cancel 588 Million shares was and, based on your expertise in accounting, where did that capital come from based on the February end of quarter numbers.
How did they do it last time. Where did the capital come from? what is your assessment of the cost to retire those shares?
Or, you don't know what you are talking about and can't understand my argument.
You have nothing to validate your statements as you have no balance sheet numbers. I have a history of regulatory filings that define zip for cash on hand despite sales. I have a lawsuit that states emphatically that RME was tapped into for financing the GFGU deal. That AUTOMATICALLY raises the O/S as history has proven 100% of the time.
There is nothing you have to support your assertions. the only discussion to hang your hat on is that comment at the end of the February filing that discusses the re-purchase and cancellation of shares. The problem you face, showing where the money came to do that.
You are simply supporting my argument. They are raising the A/S to maintain a certain amount of "headroom" between the A/S and the O/S. as the O/S increases they likewise have to increase the A/S.
My point was, if the grass is not growing (O/S) you don't keep going out and mowing the lawn by raising the height of the blades (A/S). To some here they keep claiming the O/S is shrinking (dirt) and yet you keep going out and playing with the blade.
You have no proof of any of this.
Shares issued to RME in a PIPE placement are 144 stock issuance and they can be converted from restricted to Unrestricted in 6-months. You similarly have no evidence of where the capital originates to cancel these shares since it was clear that as late as September 2009 they didn't have $1 Million.
I believe that there are many ways for a funds shares to be reduced and very few times is it due to a share buyback and cancellation.
To say that this was a buyback reduction without proof is simply putting out false and misleading information. Your theory is even more suspect when you consider that just 3-4 weeks ago they did not have the capital to invest in GetFugu and had to raise the money from RME. If SPNG was going to buy back and cancel shares from RME they would not need to raise money from them at the same time?
There is no reason for the A/S to change unless the O/S changes.
do you keep mowing your lawn when there is no growth in your grass? and i should say; and raising the blade at the same time?
It means no such thing. SPNG was raising money from RME as late as September 2009. You have zero evidence that the O/S are reducing.
Did you consider that RME share reduction would come via sales into the market?
either way, I don't believe the published numbers because their are no filings that would be used to make up these numbers. NASDAQ or any other service can only publish holdings that come from filings. how else would they know?
The 257M number has been the same for many months. It has never been updated (up or down). I believe the number is based on an initial filing last year that listed that number.
It is quite interesting that Metter made this claim because he was the person who created that bio and everything else in it checks out. There are likewise private e-Mails that support his role in RME.
I wonder why he would lie.
How many SEC cases of fraud result in a criminal enforcement action?
I would suggest that you read the FINRA and SEC Monthly enforcement reports and see how many frauds are handled civilly but no criminal enforcement came of them. CEO's of micro-cap stocks are barred from ever being an officer of a public company again and fined heavily due to fraud, including a P&D, and yet the DOJ never gets involved.
I am not allowed to provide an example of another company because it seems to incite the TOU police so lets look at it this way:
SpongeTech is under an SEC investigation. The SEC can hold the investigation themselves, refer it to the DOJ for criminal activity, or run a parallel investigation. criminal usually out prioritizes civil in terms of timing. Very few are referred for criminal activity for this reason and because it is harder to prove criminal.
What you call counterfeit is usually defined as the sale of unregistered securities in which there is much civil action precedent on such activity.
I wish I could provide you examples but people here do not want any and they TOU you for it.
SD.
1. D&T are not with SpongeTech. They have not even started and will not start until all filings are up to date. They have won a contract they bid for but to date have never opened a single book at SpongeTech. They did not run an audit of SPNG before accepting teh contract, they simply received an RFQ and responded to it with a proposal.
2. The PR you cite is clear. "The major customers cited in the SpongeTech’s financial statements for the fiscal third quarter of 2009 are all current and active customers of the Company." And that filing cited that three customers accounted for 83% of their business. I would be seriously concerned if NOBODY can locate these companies. I would likewise be seriously concerned in that the NY Post's investigation into these companies came off information provided directly by SpongeTech themselves.
Penny, I think that if you look at history, few consider jail when they engage in the fraud. In all of the accounting fraud scandals it was about gaining millions and with the expectation that they will not be caught.
SpongeTech has created a very visible moving train. Once such a train has left the station it is hard to stop it. We are not talking a few million, we are most likely talking tens of millions to more than $100 Million. Good con men would be moving this aside. SEC investigations are civil. It requires a DOJ investigation to put somebody in jail and M&M are gambling that being a penny stock it will not go in that direction.
I believe that what legal is describing was the bounce in the buying and not necessarily a bounce in PPS. There was a definitive increase in buying on the lawsuit and buying allows those that want to dump shares - dump shares.
I agree. Management will be pressing such a lawsuit for a pump and volume buys. Who will be selling? Management.
The NY Post was thorough and will be prepared to show that their research into the customers was based in their entirety on information SpongeTech provided them.
moremagic. Shares issued by SpongeTech are issued in paper form through a transfer agent. selling those type shares are generally longer than selling electronic shares because the certs have to be re-distributed through the TA. If you look at the SEC rules, they allow as much as 35 days to settle 144 stock because of this type delay.
I am glad you believe that because the next big PR coming out of SpongeTech will most likely be a PR in which they will claim they have sued the NY Post. SpongeTech knows they can't win the suit but winning is not necessarily the goal.
I believe that I read some information just the other day that implied that some people here posting are fully aware that this lawsuit is pending and have discussed the PPS impact they think this lawsuit will have.
Now the NY Post is of course fully aware of this possibility and will be prepared to immediately debunk the lawsuit by offering up the information that SpongeTech provided them.
The SEC is also aware of this most recent information pertaining to a SpongeTech lawsuit attempt and i think they too may have a good retort to a possible pump and dump.
badshah, SpongeTech is under an SEC investigation for wrongdoing. The claims against SpongeTech parallel those of the comopanies you offer. I believe each of those principles have lost their legal battles. As it relates to SpongeTech, business operations are in question as they were with the company you refer. Can you supply evidence of SpongeTech business Operations beyond that included in regulatory filings.
Specifically from the last SpongeTech Filing:
Revenue Recognition
Sales and services are recorded when products are delivered to the customers. Provision for discounts, estimated returns and allowances, and other adjustments are provided for in the same period the related sales are recorded. In instances where products are configured to customer requirements, revenue is recorded upon the successful completion of the Company’s final test procedures. For the six months ended November 30, 2008, three customers, SA Trading Company, Dubai Export Import Company and New Century Media, accounted for 82.9 percent of sales.
Can you locate these customers that represent 82.9% of their business operations?
TIA
VERT has a history of selling for the likes of PIPE financiers. They would dump stock for YA Global (Formerly Cornell Capital).
I stand corrected, i counted the zero's wrong.
I received some insight on RME's Business. this may explain a little about what is happening with SPNG shares.
RM is a business and their sole purpose is to provide venture capital via structured deals... If a company approaches me and asks for help, I ensure that RM seeks the funding then we structure a deal. The deal usually involves pref shares in the company which are sold off given the terms of the deal. In essence, RM is a financier. Tom, Frank, and myself are just those who facilitate the investors who are willing to use RM as a means to invest into a company. They make a profit and so does RM."
If RM doesn't sell shares then they and their investors don't make any money. I wonder who their investors are and do you really think that they would hold all this stock and not turn it into a profit? they do not show up as a major PIPE financier according to Deal Flow Media and the PIPE's Report.
rainy day.
lets see what soapy bubbles (SH) has to say. it was a straight forward question.
if the first trade sale to a buyer is ex-clearing it requires a second trade (not ex-clearing) to create a CNS fail. the second trade would be the long from the ex-clearing trade selling out a position in the open market before the ex-clearing trade settled.
then you have nothing. thank You.
Z$, a fail cleared ex-clearing will not show up on SHO as i have stated to you 100 times now but what happens when the BUYER in that ex-clearing trade decides to SELL later. if they sell in teh open market, and if the ex-clearing trade failed, the long sale would create a fail that does show up on SHO.
it takes more than one trade. you keep basing your discussion on a single trade. It requires a second trade.
Z4, i have no idea if doug or insiders sold. they represent a small percentage (ie noise).
A trade clearing ex-clearing is taken between two parties and/or brokers. But when the long party chooses to sell, if they sell open market they would create a fail (long fail).
actually i am getting more and more frustrated at the absolute lack of detail to support a single long position. How can every one of you be long and yet none of you have a modicum of data to support your position outside of the questionable data disseminated by the company.
But WST is the TA so why would they say they are not. They are now gagged as well. That level of a/S complies with the levels we now know were accurate and the level of O/S is within reason of where we would expect based on FUTURE changes to the A/S.
Like I said, you don't raise the A/S 3 times in a 6 week period unless you are encroaching on it time and again.
soapy, the message boards have exposed many longs claiming they bailed. My office coworkers all dumped theirs. A contingent of investors I spoke to in NY with some major holdings (in the tens of millions) all told me they sold out. So you want to say these are all lies?
Come on guys, give me something of substance that will challenge me.
and so Old Monmouth is willing to risk serious fines and/or closure to cover up this story? you are delusional. Kaja Whitehouse called Pensley's office and Old Monmouth and both confirmed the authenticity of those documents.
So what proof do YOU have that they are fake based on the third party confirmations of their authenticity?
you are starting to sound more and more like a company shill. You say a lot but you don't seem to offer much do you?
The past has shown that 90% of shares were issued to RME. lets assume they haven't sold and Doug Furth hasn't sold. And add in that none of the insiders sold. if NONE of these entities sold, what is trading in the market at 125 - 200 Million shares daily?
If you have near 3 Billion shares, day trading and flipping will account for a certain percentage but unless some or all of those 3 sold, the level of fails would have to be huge. An illegal short may trade ex-clearing but those short sales would be going to all these retail longs. With the amount of retail longs selling, the fails would have to be huge to account for a limited float.
RME has to have sold shares in order to support the volume trading taking place.
z4, you re beating a dead horse. All i know is that history has shown that all shares are being issued to RME. I already said I have no knowledge of how they were issued and how they get legends removed. To provide any further insight would only have people say that I am putting out opinion and calling it fact.
More like 1-2 Billion.
bwog, the 10K will have nothing to do with new clients. It is a filing that closes out 2009. Those are the clients IN QUESTION.
as for my facts - yes it is a FACT that a transfer agent report showed 1.95 BILLION shares end of June 2009.
Yes it is FACT that the $1.75 Million investment in getFugu came through a financing deal with RME.
Those FACTS completely shred your argument that the O/S is 722 Million or less. The only assumption I made is that the shares issued between 722 Million and something north of 2 Billion went to RME and that assumption is based on a year or precedent set.
Now how about spilling out your FACTS.
I believe that the Reg SHO listing is due to RME selling stock yes. I have seen the exact scenarios happen to other companies with PIPE deals which is really what RME is.