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.
You have your opportunity to prove it. have at it.
you claim facts, we all claim theories or worse sock puppet management.
Since you claim the 10K will prove it, and the 10K is based on sales into May 2009 where SA trading, New century Dubai EI, etc... are the major customers, your proof must come with evidence they in fact do exist. Spill some of the evidence.
These delays are all dependent on when and how they request the legend to be removed. Not all 144 stock creates a fail, it is purely a function of how and when they submit for legend removal.
since none of us know how they are moving their stock it is impossible to differentiate. My point is, just because there is an FTD it is not always a short fail and with this stock, there is a continual flood of new shares coming into the market. One could even suggest that RME has not filed with the SEC because they do not hold the requisite levels to file.
an ex-clearing short sale will not have any impact on SHO until such time as the long buyer of that ex-cleared trade sells their stock. If the fail was ex-clearing it can still be a posted FTD as a long fail through a secondary trade.
for the volume of trading taking place, the FTD's do not seem to support a great deal of naked shorts as those NSS shorts would be represented at the long fail side. you can't tell me that longs have not dumped shares.
I am sure there are. I couldn't say by percentage because who the heck knows how many there are but yes, there are penny stocks to invest in, you just have to do greater DD before doing so.
FTD's are fails to deliver as represented at the DTCC's CNS system. The System is not notified whether the trade was a long sale or a short sale, only that a net settlement failure existed. A sale of 144 paper stock will in fact result in a FTD. Metter and moscowitz want you to believe these are NSS fails but the short interest report does not align with that.
"BTW, the buyers they sold to in the Feb filing, aren't 'bogus'. They are quite real and so are the sales. "
All I have asked is for somebody to prove it. SPNG would not do that to the NY post and the comment you made above is no proof at all. You have no credibility. You are an investor who carries emotion into the decision process. I am not and thus I do not carry emotion.
As to my research, It is what it is. Research is about public information. Show me your research that can be supported by public information or other. the fact that I put a name on my post and you do not says a great deal.
bwog, what ever you want to say....
why not show us here all this great DD and independent third party verifications. If your verifications came from the company, I have heard that one before.
why not post something other than vitriol. If you have proof that can persuade me to alter my decisions show me the data don't make me take your word for it as I expect investors to make up arguments to justify their investments.
BTW...New sales? How do new sales that are additive to prior sales and re-sales support the 450 million they claim to have posted last year? Are you somehow implying that the FY2009 sales (majority offshore) are no longer applicable? it is the majority offshore that is attached to the "bogus companies"? has your DD found these companies?
come on man, you have given me absolutely nothing. you even want to deny SPNG own filings and PR's when it comes to RME dilution.
bwog, what don't you get.
You don't have to convince me of anything. You have been offered evidence you choose to ignore. Not my investment so not my worry.
CVS and Walgreens do NOT represent a majority of their sales as stated directly in SpongeTech releases and filings. They tell you that their major customers accounting for 90+% of their sales are in companies that include New Century, Dubai Export Import, Fresco, and SA Trading. Go out and find them. better yet, ask SpongeTech why they couldn't provide accurate contact information about these firms to the NY Post and why did the IR firm that provided the bad information to the NY post suddenly leave SpongeTech?
You IM'd me and told me you had this huge network shareholder base, If what you say is true, why fight me with childish remarks when you should be out researching a little. Why is every long afraid to address these companies listed in filings and press releases fixating only on the walgreens and CVS stuff. Stuff SPNG admits is a minority part of their business.
Yes I was one source to her articles. I helped point her in a direction and then she followed it by interviewing the company and several others.
To the other comments to me:
Where did the 2 Billion O/S come from? Last page.
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/Forged%20Documents.pdf
Why did SpongeTech mention it in a lawsuit if it was a problem?
I did not say the dilution was a problem, I just said the dilution took place which counters the hype and belief that the O/S was going down. The argument was that shares being held were of a large quantity and were based on a stale reported share structure. My point was to illustrate that the stale structure could not be used as a basis for discussion since evidence since then disputes it's accuracy.
Furth. He had a legal action against him and his brother regarding penny stock share problems.
bwog,
You are not reading what I stated. You are using assumptions, I am using facts.
Follow this link to the SpongeTech Lawsuit and read Page 6 and 7. In the suit, Spongetech is admitting that all the funds for GFGU came from RME.
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/SPNG%20getfugu%20lawsuit.pdf
You should likewise follow this link for a copy of a Transfer Agent report on the share structure in late June.
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/Forged%20Documents.pdf
So these are not assumptions but data that supports this theory. Historical practices likewise support this theory as SPNG (in 2009 filings) have documented that the business burn rate vastly exceeds profits. They borrowed nearly $12 Million (at nearly a billion share dilution) thru February 2009 despite these great profits. Nothing significant changed since then that would say that this practice would be altered. Even their theoretical $70 Million in booked orders would not have supported the June - September cash burn based on lead times in production, sales and accounts receivable delays.
The A/S does not move around this frequently for no reason. If the O/S is staying the same there is no treason to spend the money constantly moving the A/S. Not recognizing this is simply being naive.
bwog, I don't have PM privilege so I will respond here to a degree.
I don't doubt what you have stated. I don't doubt it at all. but there are many reasons for the cause beyond that of the conclusions you have drawn.
Here is what your group needs to consider:
1. With a gagged TA your assertions are based on stale data. What we have seen is that in June 2009 the new TA was showing nearly 2 Billion O/S so you should use that as a basis point.
2. Since June the company has raised the A/S at least 3 times and at regular frequency. You do not do that unless you need the headroom. The fact that they raised it to 3 Billion recently implies that they are close to 3 Billion.
3. The lawsuit filed against getFugu shows emphatically that 100% of the investment funds came through stock dilution to RME. At the August prices, and the standard 40% discounted price, how many shares at say $0.05 does it take to raise $1.75 Million? Answer - 350 million shares. How many shares were required to Finance the $4.5 Million to purchase Dicon?
4. Finally, NSS into long holders may be hidden through ex-clearing etc...but they re-appear when the longs trade out of their positions. The FTD's and the short interest reports do not really support a huge NSS based on the volume of trading seen every day. Knowing what we do about shares issued to RME, those are most likely what shares your group owns. All of your assertions are based on stake data and based on the assumption that RME has never sold a share which is impossible.
Now I have said before that I could be wrong but I doubt it. This activity by M&M (who have a past history in P&D) exactly parallels past scams exactly like this. Investors did exactly what you did but what happened was what I have presented, it was actually insiders. research CMKX and USXP as perfect parallels.
bwog,
Hate to disappoint but I did more than just send e-Mails. e-Mails are a form of documenting that can't be denied but there are plenty of phone calls as well.
as for the rest of your assertions, you need to learn more about the system and you should learn more about me. The SEC knows me quite well and I have both friends and foes there. I have the same at FINRA. In fact, earlier this week I was in DC to attend the SEC's roundtable on Short Selling reforms and spoke briefly to Chairman Schapiro who knows me quite well. One of the suggestions I made to her was one that would help out you investors here.
The Reg SHO list and reporting of FTD's are being misinterpreted by investors, The lists are automatically equated to NSS fails when that is not always the case. selling 144 stock will create a fail as easily as a NSS. my request to the Commission is that the data be raised to a higher standard by posting total fails and then posting the fails by short and long position fails. Differentiating between the two will aid investors in knowing what exactly is happening with the market.
My web site is www.investigatethesec.com. It has been around since 2003 and I have been focused on NSS for nearly 10 years. But in this effort I found that con men have used this vehicle to engage in long side pump and dump fraud. I witnessed many such events that paralleled this one and where investors (uninformed investors) bought the stories hook line and sinker. I am hear to protect the real issues of NSS. Calling this one a NSS destroys the efforts of the regulators and congress when they look at it as such and then find out it is nothing more than a pump and dump.
I hope this explains my reason for doing this.
Alfie is a paid stock promoter and as such he will never be negative his meal ticket.
Where is Alfie in addressing the red flags? If he speaks so frequently to Metter and Moscowitz, why can't he get insight on contact info for these infamous customers SpongeTech sells to.
I looked up the Wal-Mart South America sits and could not find their products listed on the web site (as they are not listed in North America either). Hard to sell what is not being advertised.
Do you think alfie could address the share structure issue as well? He certainly doesn't want to do that. I wonder if he has been receiving shares for services lately.
Furth has a checkered past relative to stock scams and why should anybody believe different here.
Okay, so I went to the Wal-Mart web site and they list their international web sites.
International Websites
Argentina: www.wal-mart.com.ar
Brazil: www.walmartbrasil.com.br/wmbrazil/wmstores/HomePage.jsp Canada: www.walmartcanada.ca
China: www.wal-martchina.com Japan: http://www.the-seiyu.com/ Mexico: www.walmartmexico.com.mx
Puerto Rico: www.walmartpr.com
United Kingdom: www.asda.com
I wasn't getting any SpongeTech products to show up. Now all I did was search for sponges in the South American sites but none came up. Maybe you can have better luck finding teh Wal-Mart South American sales venue.
"Esponja" was the search I used.
The naked short theory is bogus.
1. The short interest levels do not support teh theory.
2. If you assume the shorts all originated offshore thus not part of that report, the new laws would say that those member firms would be in violation of the rules. Member firms must confirm affirmative determination for non-member originated trades.
3. Based on the heavy volume trading, even a naked short would then create a long side failure once the long investor dumps their position. With all teh negative news, I know of tens of millions of shares that were dumped. They would show up as fails if they were originated from a naked short.
4. The fails data shows a pattern where large blocks of shares fail and large blocks of fails settle. This would be the signals of a long fail (cert delay settlement). I have spoke to Mary Schapiro at teh Conference this week and suggested that the SEC relese the FTD data and segregated fails by long and short to better display this situation so that investors will recognize the potentials where 144 stock is being dumped.
No BS, your logic is very illogical.
1. There are no agreements that the stock being bought back will be at the price it was offered. There is talk of one agreement but none of the other conversions offer that language.
2. RME is offered stock at a 40% discount, if these are free loans, why offer at a discount as the price is irrelevant?
3. These are your typical Convertible Debenture PIPE deals and teh terms of these deals are in many cases worse than what an outside PIPE offering would receive.
4. RME has not filed beneficial ownership so you have no idea what level of shares they hold.
5. You call yourself a qualified accountant and yet you accept filings that identify customers that can not be located. Any qualified accountant would consider this a red flag.
6. Cash flow. It is irresponsible business to invest monies raised by offering your stock at a 40% discount. Moreso when the investments you are making are extremely risky. Being the first application in GetFugu (a product that has had no sales in two years) is not something you borrow capital you do not have for and do so at a significant discount. This is why you maintain some level of liquid capital, if you want to invest, you must have access to liquid capital.
Tell me BS, how much of their investments in Dicon and GetFugu came from raising capital from RME and what percentage of shareholder dilution transpired to raise this capital? Since RME is not an independant third party but the principes are the same as the company, whose interests are best being served; RME with discounted shares or SpongeTech shareholders?
Finally, I have an SEC investigation in my back pocket to test your theory that these customers exist. What proof do you have that these customers, and thus these sales, are in fact real?
"They sell to SA Trading Group who in turns sells and distributes to Walmart."
That would be great if only somebody could find SA Trading. What part of that issue don't you get? SpongeTech can not provide any contact information about SA Trading and with hundreds of people looking, nobody else has found them either. I am waiting on a response from WalMart.
I suggest you read the SpongeTech lawsuit. That state right in the lawsuit that all teh funds for teh GetFugu Investment came from RME.
Page 6 of Lawsuit filed:
23. On August 24, 2009, in reliance on GetFugu's representation that SpongeTech would become the Platform's first customer and would remain on that Platform in perpetuity, SpongeTech obtained funds from it's investment arm, RM Enterprises International, Inc (RM) and had those funds transmitted by electronic wire to GetFugu.
24. From in or about September 2, 2009 to approximately September 10, 2009, counsel for GetFugu and SpongeTech negotiated definitive contracts (The "Definitive Contracts")which provided for SpongeTech being on the Platform in perpetuity and for the sale of the securities. In good faith reliance on GetFugu's representations that it would deliver teh Securities, SpongeTech obtained additional funds from RM in the amount of $1,500,000.0 and had those Securities Purchase Funds transmitted by electronic wire to GetFugu.
So...All this great business and the company still can't pay for anything without tapping into GetFugu.
Lets just say that GetFugu is being looked at by regulators as closely as SpongeTech. It is just that SpongeTech is putting out bigger and more market explosive PR's which is that squeeky wheel syndrome.
First, they have no proof of these sales as research by many have come up without evidence the firms exist.
Second, If your sales ramp up, so do your carried costs to manufacture, ship, and inventory. Profits from increased revenues come down the road some time because of the delays in payment on inventory shipped. Payments would be net 30, 60 or 90 days so no, the money did not just suddenly swoop in (assuming these sales even existed).
Lastly, learn the difference between booked orders and sales. They did not do $70 Million in shipped sales. They don't even say that. They said they had $70 Million in booked orders starting in June. What are the terms of the purchase orders relative to shipments (nobody buys a full lt and sits on inventory). A ramp up also requires lead time on materials. SpongeTech was not sitting on inventory (per their last 10Q, that would support this type of run rate. Again this is all based on the belief these sales are real which I do not.
So please come with a better argument that that.
They carry similar AR every quarter as that only goes towards future materials for future orders. That is if you believe their numbers at all anyway as SpongeTech has never found opportunity to provide information that would support these firms even exist.
if teh sales are bogus, so would the AR be bogus.
Actually you are wrong. Your numbers are far more speculation than mine.
I can use precedent to support my claims and I can use forward looking details that support that past precedent continued forward.
Tell me genius, if SpongeTech had 31 Million in sales and $10 Million in profits for teh first 9 months of 2009, why did they raise $12 Million from RME and why was their cash at only $34,000.
from here consider:
1. SpongeTech accelerated their advertising post February 2009. Where did this added capital come from since all filings show a very limited cash flow available.
2. SpongeTech acquired Dicon post February 2009 and is an investment they had not had previously. Where dd the money come to make this acquisition?
3. SpongeTech did not wire the money to GetFugu in August and september, RME did. Why is RME wiring the money if SpongeTech has the capital on their own?
4. The repurchase of 580,000 shares between March 1 and April 15. How much did that cost and where did the capital come from? On February 28, 2009 there was only $34,000 in cash.
If you want to do battle, do it with logic and data, not a wish and a prayer.
Generic, since you keep asking, I will answer. I wouldn't touch this stock with a ten foot pole.
1. There is nothing that supports their claims of how far they will reach out in their apps. i would suggest that you do some research on other apps and see what kind of a reach they get and then, what kind of usage they get.
2. The manner in which GetFugu spends money and allocates money and shares to insiders is disturbing. It is your a-typical pump and dump. Their burn rate (Nearly $3 Million/quarter) does not support their business as software design is not that expensive. Their filings also show that they paid consultants a hefty fee to raise capital and that fee almost equalled the capital they raised. Much of those going to payment to insiders.
3. GetFugu partnered with very strange companies. Vanity events has zero revenues and outside of business with Spongetech, does nothing else. They had $1,000 in the bank and were allowed to invest. SpongeTech is a con as I have well described. Health matrix is a con web site with no business product. Their site re-directs you to other platforms and I have confirmed they receive no revenue from those platforms. so what does Health matrix do and how and why did they invest in GetFugu before they even had a business? What I found was that the CEO of Health matrix has his own checkered past and has a lien filed against him (2007),his partner, and his two hedge funds for non-payment.
These are not exactly top notch investors that they sought out here. And then you have Carl Freer and his prior involvement in a pump and dump failed business. It all adds up to trouble ---- and ZERO revenues.
And what of the SpongeTech 8K's? What do you think of their lack of disclosure relative to changing the A/S? How about their PR that references an O/S defined months back (April 2009) instead of in reference to present O/S?
Anybody that reads carefully teh SpongeTech PR's, they want you all to be under the impression that they have not sold a single share and that the O/S continues to decline when in fact none of that is true. If RME hasn't sold a share, why aren't the fails higher since all teh shares are in their hands? If the O/S is reducing and not rising, why did they raise the A/S three times in a matter of 1 month? If teh O/S isn't increasing, why is RME sending GetFugu money wires on 4 separate occasions? Are all these companies co-mingling their funds?
The fact that RME wired the money and not SpongeTech is mere validation that SpongeTech remains cash flow strapped and that SpongeTech continues to take PIPE deals from RME at significantly dilutive and discounted share prices. It is clear that all these activities coincide with the continued increase in A/S as the O/S increases as well.
RME is funding their investment capital by getting Spongetech shares, dumping them into the market for profit, and then turning around and doing it again. The profits go into their pockets and the baseline capital is all that gets re-invested.
A closer look at the con. looking at all the facts surrounding this, this is my opinion of what this con was.
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/files/The%20GetFugu%20Relationship.pdf
I am hoping that data that should come out soon may in fact support this argument even further.
from a trusted source:
"SA" does not mean "South America". In Spanish speaking countries, it means "Sociedad Anonima" (Anonymous Partnership) which is the equivalent of our "Inc" or "Ltd".
Don't let people claim this site corresponds to SpongeTech's "SA Trading".
http://panjiva.com/Trading-Group-S-A/1637469
If you look at the press release, it is a $3 Million order on 500,000 units. That is $6.00/unit. Based on what is seen in the states, the stores are discounted the sales below the $6.00 threshold. Are they taking a loss to unload or are the South Americans paying more?
It is interesting how these sales materialized from the company that recently was accused of not existing. Maybe now that this sale occurred, Metter should be able to provide more contact info n them.
Fourkids,
Since I only have posting privileges for 3 posts per day I will conclude my day with this.
1. You have no idea who I am and where my mind is. I will call a spade a spade regardless of what side of the fence it rests on. Ask the USXP investors. They blistered me when I downplayed NSS and called out the company officers. I refused to address CMKX because I felt it was a scam from long ago. People close enough to me know that full well.
2. Our system is rigged. Rigged against stupid people. Corrupt short sellers play the “bad management card” and corrupt corporate officers play the “NSS card”. It takes intelligence to decipher which play you are investing in. Companies that lack transparency, and dilute as this company has, is generally a play by corporate con men. Everything that has been presented to date supports that.
3. Sending our dialogues into the regulators. Great. Do you really think that scares me? What they will do is further advance their understanding of how gullible investors are. You see, I have no personal financial interest in this company. I am more disgusted in the fact that companies like this, along with the CMKX’s and USXP’s of this world, have derailed positive reforms because they prove to regulators that most investors are ignorant of the facts. As I explained before (and you should take the time to research) those two companies had cult basis bigger than this and cried NSS right up to the arrests of corporate officers. What makes you think this is any different?
Unfortunately, the difference between you and I, I research things. You trade on emotion and you tout on rumors. That is what message board people do. I have suggested many times that you actually come out with data, verifiable data that supports the SpongeTech sales. Bring in contact information, bring in some foreign stores that are selling these sponges in the millions, do something other than tout stock trade volumes when you have no idea what that volume means or how it is created. People like you have become part of the problem, regulators can’t figure out how they can keep the markets functional when they have to protect people from message board chatter created by bored and generally unintelligent investors.
The David Patch you think you know you don’t. I have never nor will I ever make excuses for fraud just because. You want me to say this is NSS because it fits into your bad investment. I can’t and won’t because it doesn’t fit into my perceptions of what is going on. Can I be wrong? Damn right. But my data comes with better verification than yours so until you can convince me otherwise, I will stick to my research and thus my opinion. I would hope that if you stick with yours and tout more buying, that you will be willing to accept the consequences if it turns sour for you and those you brought in. I know I explained my concerns to many and saved all a lot of money so far. THAT is what I do and why I came to this market.
Headed off to DC ---- Later!
fourkids,
Can you explain in detail what makes this a solid investment? Have you verified the companies SpongeTech claims to ship to? If not, why not, based on the level of controversy that is out there regarding them?
A 10Q is only as good as the accuracy of data that goes into it. In this case, all investors here are basing their investment solely on teh sales numbers and yet not one can come up with evidence that those sales are real and being shipped to a distributor identified by SpongeTech.
Furthermore, can you explain in detail the cash flow situation with SpongeTech. Where does their cash come from? Please use 2009 filings as an example of how SpongeTech makes their payments for services. From the last 10Q, the company had $31 Million revenues and nearly $7 Million profit on Revenues while at the same time they borrowed $12 Million from RME and had $34,000 in the bank. Fast forward this profit/spending profile to explain stock buy backs, accelerated advertising program, acquisitions, and investments. Tell me how they spend all this money without tapping RME based on how sales are created, invoice payments received (on a delayed basis), and ramp up in manufacturing.
If you want to tout the stock, please do so with supportive arguments that make sense. Touting a stock to keep people invested without explaining to them in detail why these red flags should not be a concern is as bad as any accusations you with to make against "bashers".
I challenge you on this because you reached out and asked me questions in private about the authenticity of my concerns and never revealed such to the board.
Dave Patch
http://investigatethesec.com/drupal-5.5/?q=node/906
To answer some of the questions asked of me in private this past weekend.
Yes, I am the David Patch that operates www.investigatethesec.com. I have reviewed the facts pertaining to SpongeTech and have posted by facts and analysis in the FOIA/Analysis section of the web site. My opinions are quite clear; I believe this to be a scam company as many others that used the Naked Short Sale Venue were as well.
Fact 1. Just because you are on the SHO list does not 100% verify that naked short selling is the cause. Insiders dumping recently issued shares will create the same look and settlement result as a NSS. It takes longer for paper certs to clear and thus they create fails. When a company, supposedly profitable company, has to dilute their market to the billions it is a red flag, more so when the dilution is directed to entities controlled by the company officers (RME).
Fact 2. The executives of SpongeTech have done everything in their power to dissuade you away from their activities. If they are clean it would be very easy to prove. They choose not to. Why not File Form 4’s and Form 13’s proving their true stock ownership? If they go NASDAQ they would have to and clearly, these guys have no problem reporting changes in share structures. I do not believe RME hasn’t sold any shares because to date, more than 80% of all shares have been issued to them. With the trading volume we see daily, the FTD’s would be much greater if it was NSS as long fails from long investors bailing would show up as a fail.
Fact 3. Not a single long investor has come up with a contact for the customers SpongeTech claims they sell to. Why not? Instead of shooting the messenger, do your homework and prove the messenger wrong. I could not find any contact information and, the story reported by the Post was based solely on their research into the contact information SpongeTech provided. Why didn’t SpongeTech give up contact information that could be verified?
USXP and CMKX were similar scams. The officers befriended the investors and created a cult like environment but a scam at that. Both the executives of CMKX and USXP have been arrested by Federal Authorities for perpetrating a scam and using NSS as their rally cry.
For 10 years I fought the issues of NSS. Today I continue to fight the issues by outing those who wrongly claim it is the cause for their stocks collapse when in fact it is not. Companies like SpongeTech make progress in NSS reforms harder because investors like you contact the SEC and claim NSS when it is not. NSS is real, just not real here.
Do your own diligence; find solid third party evidence that SpongeTech is real. Don’t just buy the party line from people I believe to be con men.
Not sure why you jailed me. I also make note of the fact that you pulled a pot of mine. I find it funny that I am jailed and a message pulled as many people on this board are using my personal name in their posts which I believe to be a violation.
I would think for integrity sake that the system work equally or not at all.
Janice... I guess you have difficulty reading and grasping what is stated.
No I am not the "patchman" in the lawsuit (Believe it or not there is more than one person with the last name of patch) and it was Chad that was coming to that conclusion based on nothing but those first 5 letters. He tried to link patchman, Eagletech, and Jag Media all into one which is foolish since patchman never posted on the Jag Board but I did (note DID).
I don't even follow Eagletech so I have no idea what the lawsuit is even about. It appears to be about bashing Companies which is contradictory to what I do so obviously it makes no sense.
Chad,
The Patchman is here and willing to answer any and all questions you have.