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.
stox, I hope this it!! Go SPNG. GLTA>
That's super DD....looks like the OS number is pivoted at 200MM. Oye, SPNG, lets rock!
You are innocent till found guilty. I'll let the justice system iron that out...they do that only after listening and reviewing evidence presented by both sides!!
I agree Pike is helping himself!
Time will tell for sure. Right now a lot of allegations. None of them have been proven yet(inspite of cutting & pasting content/documents which are but a mere fractional view of the whole context)!! I am positively biased.
I disagree with you. I have been watching the trades....the trade size and the PPS looks strange! Could it be that the SROs are trading from one account to another! Of course there are days when retail investors and some fairly large sized holders have been selling.....I will grant that...but by and large the trades look hoky to me! Even all the purchases by Pike....millions at sub 5 cents looks kind a strange...how can you buy that many without bumping up the price.
Bottom line, the declining PPS indicator is a 'valid' indicator but not a 'reliable' one....based on my experiential knowledge.
Agreed about the Red indicators but the Wells Notice has not been resolved yet!!!.
But then again, you have not answered my question..... Is Pike behavior rational or irrational? What info (other than the existing red flags) do you have that support yours claim that it is inconsequential?
VDrew, can you explain Pike's buying actions?? One theory is that Pike is after Dicon MFG but that does not make monetary sense...why spend $16Million on SPNG shares when SPNG bought Dicon for $4Million?? Why would Pike spend $16 Million on decreasing Sales and Increasing OS??
Mingy, thanks, I stand corrected. Don't mean to be picky, you are close....
"Not 522M, but rather 532,807,431. So that would actually make OS 190,058,630."
That should have been 532,767,431. And so that would make the OS 190,098,630!
All in good spirit.
FOR SURE???????????????????????
2 of them!!!
You are entitled to your opinion. I think smart money is there because of a shrinking O/S and a growing business. It will not be there if the the O/S was 1.5 billion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So you are saying O/S is 723 Million. O.K.!
Mingy,I disagree with your math and here's why..........
"
.....Total issuance to RME= 1,125,547,850
On January 13, 2009, RM agreed to return an aggregate of 133,577,066
On April 16, 2009, RM Enterprises cancelled 526,585,544 common shares to reduce the common shares issued and outstanding from 1,249,451,605 to 722,866,061 common shares. These common shares were put back into the treasury......
"
1. "..On January 13, 2009, RM agreed to return an aggregate of 133,577,066..".
This does not mean that they cancelled the 133,577,066 shares.'agreed to' does not mean that they actually did it. In my books this number is included in the 526,585,544 shares that were cancelled.
So that leaves RME with a total number of shares equal to 598,922,306 (1,125,547,850 - 526,585,544) .
2. As of Dec 2009,As of 09/28/2009, RME is only left with 66,154,875 shares.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409054225/xslF345X02/v163363_ex.xml
So that means RME shed 522,717,431 shares (598,922,306-66,154,875). I can only assume that the 522,717,431 shares were cancelled and returned to Treasury (based on their past actions).
3. Hence the expected O/S stands at 200,148,630 (722,866,061 - 522,717,431).
Finally, the above makes sense to me as Pike is scooping up shares and with their recent filings they would own 80% of SPNG. If Pike has been buying so as to increase their stake to 90% or more, look out for a negotiated takeover.
Dude, Pike just bought 2 tranches, one for 2million at certain purchase price and another for 6million at a certain purchase price....from one fund to another fund within the same PIKE!
Is it not possible that these transfer/purchase took place X-open market??
O.K let us say you are right...then they (RME) would have sold from a brokerage account i.e RME's brokerage account must have held 240Millin shares of SPNG...am I correct? Say, that their brokerage account statement did indeed hold 240Million shares, then how is that possible when the shares have not been registered?? So it is just not a lapse on SPNG's part...it is a lapse by RME, SPNG and their broker dealer as well as their SEC Attroney!!! So who should be punished...shouldn't FINRA punish their broker dealer..... who is RME and SPNG's broker dealer??? MM AYME??? And not forget the TA...TA cannot transfer the shares into the brokerage account without registration??
Fla, were these purchased in the open market?/ If yes, can you provide a link indicating so!TIA
"....but I'm just guessing).....'
THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.VERY APTLY SAID. IN FACT ALL OF YOUR STATEMENTS ARE 'GUESSES'. THANK YOU FOR OWNING UP!
that was a cut & paste from a link (those were the words of the content). it is quite evident that Immediate Capital Group are not of integral character.
U can twist & shout your interpretation as you like deem fit to your objectives!!!
Ask the SEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!And thou shalt know!!!!!
The O/S would have been known by now....but the SEC suspended and brought about this current predicament based on ALLEGATIONS.....NOTHING has been proven. Please provide links where it categorically states and proves the ALLEGATIONS.
Meanwhile SPNG continues to make huge leaps in SALES & PROFITABILITY and that is FACT.
the point being...why is all this surfacing at this juncture. Meanwhile SPNG is doing business as usual. The products have been very well accpeted by the MArket. SPNG management are still operating the company. All accusations are 'alleged' and only that.
Why do nay sayers state allegations as facts????????????
WOW look at this in black & out.................
These SWINDLERS also do business as 25 plus other companies:
O2 Media Services Group Inc.
02 Media, Inc
02 Production Studios, Inc.
02 Executive Services, Inc.
DR Marketing Group Inc.
Intellibrands Group LLC
Tricom Pictures and Productions, Inc.
Tricom Pictures
Tricom Productions
Immediate Capital Group, Inc.
Quorum Productions, Inc.
Incredible Discoveries Distribution Services LLC
Incredible Discoveries Inc.
National Shopping Club, Inc.
Access Health, Inc.
Designing Spaces, LLC
Drtv Capital Group, LLC
Eternal Security, Inc.
Etv Acquisitions LLC
Infomercial Fund I’, LLP
Infoquest Licensing, Inc.
Infoquest Management Services, Inc.
Intermedia Marketing Solutions, Inc.
International Pictures & Productions, Inc.
Iq Business Intelligence Group, LLC
Kitchen Spaces TV, Inc.
M.A. Investments, LLC
Media ******* Group LLC
Mirage Talent, Inc.
Production *******, LLC
SITE2SHOP T.V., Inc.
EXACTLY..U DON'T KILL A GROWING COMPANY> IT IS CRIMINAL! IF THE SEC DOES IT THEN PIKE COULD SUE SEC & FINRA FOR 5 TRILLION DOLLARS!!
Exactly, law suits happen all the time......look at Microsoft, Walmart, IBM, etc....they have a zillion law suits!!! And who is correct, the Plaintiff or the Defendent....in most instances they are settled out of court! It is easy to file a lawsuit when they see a company sitting on lot of Cash!
It is only Saturday and look at the MB melee.....what will Sunday, Monday & Tuesday look like????????????
BEGINNING of the END??
20 MILLION SHARES. RIGHT HERE!
I doubt it!! The NDA that you have pasted just says Pike has access to Non Public Material Info. It does not show text of prohibiting Pike from trading which all NDAs contain. I am betting that Pike does not have an NDA with SPNG which is positive (in my books)!
Robert Rubin?????? Ex Treasurer of US, Ex CEo of Goldman Sachs, Ex citi Bank Director????///////
Not true...If it is a Capital Lease, then it is on the Company's books as an asset. On the other hand if it is an operating Lease then it is an Expense!
This type of License is a different ball game!! The License is not tied to a Patent but to a Character Name owned by Viacom. Is the License with Viacom & Marvel exclusive??
"..A license for someone else's patent isn't an asset, it's an expense..."
Unless ofcourse the License is tradeable!!! It can be viewed as an asset if it is an exclusive License which I believe SPNG has with DICON.
Various reasons....the primary one being that they get their BB listing rightfully theirs and then publish 10K so that trading can take place in a transparent and orderly manner. Without a 10K and O/S it would be hard to put a value on the PPS. However if FINRA does not approve 211 and SEC settles with SPNG, SPNG publishes 10K, grey market trading would be unbearable for everyone and FINRA would get a kick in the BUTT!! I know lots of IFs here but lets face it there are lot of positives for SPNG:
1. Sales are growing at an astonishing rate and so is profit.
2. Product has been well accepted by the MArket
3. PIKE is invested heavily into SPNG and so are other groups.
I think if SEC settles and FINRA does not approve 211, FINRA would be embarrassed!!
And so the likely outcome is FINRA approves, SEC settles, 10K published.
PS. The Wells notice says that the SEC 'intends' to take action on a broad set of rules violation without specificity!!! And puts the onus on the respondent!!
Jan 12 marks the 90 day plus 15 day extension deadline! If FINRA does not grant the 211, I believe the company has the option to publish the 10K (if indeed the 10K is ready which I believe it is)!
SPNG starts trading by Mon 11 Jan 2010, otherwise all hell breaks loose!!!
MMs jerking each other!!! Nice game!!!
Well, will this be Rabbit race, a Roach race or a Crab race????? Looks like all of them are going to be on the STREET!
Excellent post.....must read....................
"
A very misunderstood aspect of accounting and the related auditing impact. A company this size CAN NOT have effective traditional internal controls, which an outside auditor can rely on in addressing various auditing approaches and techniques. Most small compnies (with limited employees) have personnel wearing several hats. Therefore the auditors assume no internal controls and plan accordingly. There are usually three charactistics of effective internal controls; segregation of duties, restricted asscess and supervision. This is the case for SPNG and many other companies of this size. The SEC is not worried about this company limitation. I believe this was the issue between NAZ and 2002 SOX regulations
. This should not be a problem in 2010. (A Fortune 500 company - YES, a very serious problem.)
The SEC is concerned about the "no Audit Committee" issue and the commingling of funds between RME and SPNG. The accounting staff is the same for both companies. And the intercompany transactions are a real issue, along with the various duties of all employees of the two entities.
A timeframe????? An audit committee, maybe 1 month; and a real CFO and an experienced accountant and several clerks, maybe three months. Hope this helps.
"
So lets get past the first hurdle..the Civil penalties....And then if there is any truth lets layout the criminal penalties. Why are you folks jumping ahead and making major assumptions???
You forgot to add that the Wells notice is really an indicator to an end i.e in most cases. The SEC has indicated that there will be civil penalties and not criminal! It is a waste of my time discussing facts with you. Over and out.