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.
George, there is a little problem with your theory. SPOOZ DOESN'T HAVE ANY MONEY!
Really??????? if so then you should see that listed as revenue for the quarterly statement. We haven't seen that yet.
The following message is actually very disturbing. Paul mentions the retail launch but not the local launch. What happened? I heard over and over again that they wanted a controlled roll out to power users where there was more bang to the buck. Now there is no mention of this strategy? Basically, there is no strategy.
Michael
No. Messrs Groves and He have not affected SpoozToolz at all and things are proceeding nicely for retail launch. There will be much more news soon.
Best,
Allie, only just begun? How about 5 years of this! Five years of promises and no product.
The problem is that we have no idea what SWARM can really do. You can speculate and guess based on your gut feeling, but that's all you have. Also, I wouldn't base any of your arguments on Grove's actions. If things played out the way they are described in the court document, then Grove is a complete idiot. How was he not going to get caught? So either things didn't happen that way or Grove has half his brain missing. Very strange.
Positive outlook is not the same as being "happy" with the investment or results. So far the results suck and that's not a matter of opinion.
Honesty Gmenfan, how can it not be true? Unless someone finds pleasure in losing money. If that's the case, why not just give it to charity.
Allie, if they are already trading, then why haven't they updated their web page yet? It still says they are going to use
SWARM!
George, I went to the shareholder meeting in 2007, I missed this last one.
I have seen the product in person and saw a demo of SWARM. At the time they were actually using Tradestation to plot a visual to SWARM because there Spoozchart software wasn't finished. I also downloaded and demoed Spoooztool 1 and Fractalz (remember that little tool that bombed?).
That's my point, they have been constantly changing, improving and adding on to the tool for the last 3 years, but there is no evidence besides one poster's hair brain fantasy that Spooz HAD to rewrite the tool because of the litigation. SPOOZ themselves confirmed this wasn't true, so why is this still a ongoing issue?
I guess when there is no product out and no revenues we need to talk about something.
Birdito, Yes, we all look forward to that answer. The problem is quarter after quarter that answer is no.
You can disagree all you want. It really makes no difference. Either way no one can buy or use Spooz tool so it makes it a little hard to generate revenue.
Yeah IW, Spooz is the most real tool that nobody will ever get a chance to use. LOL.
It's more likely that if anything was rewritten, it is because it didn't work in the first place!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MC, You show us a picture of an Excel template that looks different and you conclude that it must have undergone a complete re-writing? Huh?? A few changed menus that make up a different look and feel is what Spooz has defined as templates... no? This was the original design concept! This doesn't mean they did anything with the underlying processing engine or order processing that is the meat of the tool.
Your pulling the rewrite out of thin air. This is based on nothing but some fantasy of a poster on this board and it has now been taken as fact. Talk about an urban legend gone wild... this is it.
Actually, that is a very good question. Does Paul and the rest of the camp have anything to gain by running this thing into the dirt? I don't see a reason right now. I guess the only reason to keep stringing us along is that Paul continues to have a job from us buying his diluted stock, but I don't see any pot of gold for them by running Spooz as a scam.
I really do think they believe in what they are doing, but they haven't been able to execute. Paul may be a good guy, but he is looking very incompetent right now.
Birdito,
I too am hopeful, for I am still long in this thing. Unfortunately, if I am realistic things look worse now then they ever have.
Trust me, if I could, I would switch positions and short this thing.
I don't know how much more "proof" you need! In black and white from the court documents, the published "amazing" results of SWARM are fabricated. This pretty much means SWARM is BS.
We were LIED to plain and simple. Maybe not intentionally, but lied to all the same.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
44. Groves indicated in his written statement that:
All trading occurred in the account of Jim Pearce. The beta test period began July 2,
2007 and continued through July 18, 2007. For the beta period, only two spreads in the
energy complex were traded. The following unaudited results were generated from
account statements:
Trading Days: 12
Number of Trades: 244
Average Trades per Day: 20.3
Number of Winners: 234
Number of Losers: 5
Number of Scratches*: 5
Winning Percentage: 95.9 %
Losing Percentage: 2.05 %
Scratch Percentage: 2.05%
Average Winning Trade: ** $30
Average Losing Trade: ** $16
*A scratch is a trade initiated and offset at the same price. Transaction fee apply.
** Based upon one contract; excluding commissions and fees
Case 1:07-cv-07265 Document 1 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 8 of 16
9
45. Based on Groves’ representations and prior approval, Spooz issued a press release
disclosing the record. Spooz also used these results to inform potential clients and investors of
Spooz’s success.
46. Groves’ representations were falsified, as Spooz later discovered.
47. In fact, Groves’ trading resulted in a $9,111.08 debit, rather than a winning
percentage as represented by Groves.
peeved, now you say it isn't significant, a year ago SWARM is all everyone talked about. So now that it's hoax, it's no longer important????? This isn't about installing fear, it's about installing the truth!
And yes, I believe this is very significant.
MUST READ!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This means that SWARM is total BS.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Despite repeated promises throughout April, May, and June that SWARM was
being developed and was nearly finalized, Groves never finalized SWARM for Spooz.
38. In approximately June of 2007, Groves indicated that he would need to “beta test”
the SWARM product at a third-party facility.
39. Spooz continued to pay Groves his salary, and provided Groves with a trading
account of $25,000 in order to facilitate beta testing of the SWARM product.
40. Rather than using the trading account Spooz provided, Groves indicated he was
going to use the account of James Pearce, a third party, to perform beta testing.
41. Mr. Pearce later acknowledged that Groves represented to him that Spooz was his
company and that Groves had the permission of his “partners” to engage in trading. Groves also
asserted to Mr. Pearce that Groves owned the Spooz software, trading systems, Trade Secrets
and Patent Rights.
Case 1:07-cv-07265 Document 1 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 7 of 16
8
42. Spooz management agreed to the testing through the Pierce account with the
condition that the Spooz trading account, set up specifically for beta testing SWARM, also be
used in trading. On information and belief, Groves never traded under the Spooz account, as
Spooz requested.
43. After being pressed for results of the beta testing of SWARM, Groves provided a
written statement of the results to Spooz but insisted that he could not produce actual statements
due to “confidentiality.” Groves also represented to Spooz that, while he could itemize every
trade he executed, Pearce had, unbeknownst to Groves, entered irresponsible trades in the
account and had “blown the account up” on three separate occasions. Pearce has since stated that
Groves was the only individual to execute trades for Pearce’s sub-account.
44. Groves indicated in his written statement that:
All trading occurred in the account of Jim Pearce. The beta test period began July 2,
2007 and continued through July 18, 2007. For the beta period, only two spreads in the
energy complex were traded. The following unaudited results were generated from
account statements:
Trading Days: 12
Number of Trades: 244
Average Trades per Day: 20.3
Number of Winners: 234
Number of Losers: 5
Number of Scratches*: 5
Winning Percentage: 95.9 %
Losing Percentage: 2.05 %
Scratch Percentage: 2.05%
Average Winning Trade: ** $30
Average Losing Trade: ** $16
*A scratch is a trade initiated and offset at the same price. Transaction fee apply.
** Based upon one contract; excluding commissions and fees
Case 1:07-cv-07265 Document 1 Filed 12/27/2007 Page 8 of 16
9
45. Based on Groves’ representations and prior approval, Spooz issued a press release
disclosing the record. Spooz also used these results to inform potential clients and investors of
Spooz’s success.
46. Groves’ representations were falsified, as Spooz later discovered.
47. In fact, Groves’ trading resulted in a $9,111.08 debit, rather than a winning
percentage as represented by Groves.
"So once again, SWARM is not independent of STv2. You cannot have one without the other. So when the litigation came, STv2 could not be used as well. I know you want proof of this, right?"
STv2 is not dependent on SWARM. SWARM is a product of STv2. This should be understood.
Please do NOT delete this message because it is very important to shareholders.
Bobby, your statement of ...
"So once again, SWARM is not independent of STv2. You cannot have one without the other. So when the litigation came, STv2 could not be used as well. I know you want proof of this, right?"
...is wrong. Dead wrong. STv2 is not dependent on SWARM. SWARM is a product of STv2. You should understand this and get this correct. Your confusing people here with wrong info.
Seeker, yes that is good news that they finally got approved, but we have no idea if the following strategies even work.
". These platforms include PS VWAP, a reactive system that works best when markets are trading sideways; a volatility momentum system, which combines pattern recognition features with volatility associated with directional momentum; and a reactive system that uses Bollinger Bands to take advantage of market pricing that diverges from fair value."
"Mr. Stone said 141 Capital's use of SpoozToolz to build its systems "gives us extreme flexibility and speed, because whereas most institutions that build systems can sometimes take two to three months to hard code them, we can develop a system in a week."
He said that after hard testing on its three systems has been completed, the firm will use them to trade its own capital and "then once we feel that they work as well as we thought they would work, that's when we'll put our customer money into it."
Funny, 141 is going to trade their own capital first??? WHAT CAPITAL????
Don't confuse honesty with results. They can be the nicest guys in the world, but if they can't make money, this investment is a waste. They need to prove they can get the job done. So far, they have proved that they CAN'T get the job done. Paul has a million and one excuses and no results. I bet my right arm, come 3rd quarter there will be no revenue and further delay. I wish I could short this puppy!!!!!
Really? You talk with the everyday? What do they say? You must get something from the conversations.
Very true, actions should speak louder than words.
George, I am not sure what report you are looking at. Are you sure you have the right stock????
Rockmek has said it numerous times that they only had $62 of income for the quarter.
If you think they are booking customers and selling product right now as we speak, then please buy the hell out of it. I need a good exit point.
Well, as I have been reading and thinking I realize that the truth of the situation is doing me no good. Since Spooz has basically blown it's wad and Paul is nothing more than a used car salesman, I have decided to take a new approach.
>>>>>>>>>>
Monumental news just around the corner!!! Buy now while you still can!! Prices won't stay this low. Huge progress being made. Spooz is seconds away from generating millions in revenue. This company is the next Google.
Milo, care to share what they say?
Well, I will tell you. It isn't the first time I have heard the same rhetoric from Unwin's Presentation and the SMCC hasn't yet shown that it will generate any revenue for Spooz. So in terms of getting some dollars in the door so that they can stop diluting, no I don't see any progress.
Isn't this a more relevant question that the latter? Paul needs to prove that he is moving forward to us, we don't need to prove he isn't. I think you are looking at it bass ackwards.
George, I would like to turn the question around. What proof do you have that the company IS making progress? I posted a PROs and CONs a few days ago showing what steps they have made and haven't made. From that list the odds look pretty bad.
Thanks, phillymike. Someone needed to ask that question.
Although the response of... "There will be much more news soon."
has been so overused it is completely meaningless.
Birdito, that is a very good question. There are lots of opinions and not many facts. I believe Paul needs to clarify where they are at and what the hell is going on.
Allie,
SWARM is something made possible be STv2, but it is only one of numerous possible trading algorithms. I believe it is possible to take the algorithm without including STv2.
... but instead of arguing, let's ask Spooz if STv2 is also held up in litigation.
Well, please don't challenge me with code writing ability. I would have no problem showing you just how wrong you are.
Your entitled to your opinion of course, but a lot of people take what you say as fact and not opinion. There has been nothing from the company to back up your view.
If indeed it is true, then I believe things to be more dire than previous (if that is even possible). This means again the possibility of delayed revenues.
Anyway, who would be doing the rewriting? More contractors? That's what is really funny. Everyone here that thinks this thing is so disruptive and revolutionary has to step back and realize that it was written by external contractors in the first place! That means if they can do it, so can anyone else. Folks, this whole thing is so freaking fragile it's almost unbelievable.
I would say it's safe to that all your money is lost (IMO). Hope you have other capital gains to write off this year.
"1. You can not steal SWARM without stealing STV2. Its like the thieves grabbed a briefcase to get the laptop but they got everything else of which the total package consists by the mere act of stealing the whole. I've watched this confusion go on and on as though everyone simply misses the fact that SWARM is built out of STV2. You can not steal SWARM and not steal STV2 in the process. They are intertwined to such an extent that it is almost like SWARM has STv2 DNA. You steal SWARM, you have stolen the DNA of which it is composed."
IW, I disagree with you. Also, there has been no indication from the company that STV2 is not generating revenue because of litigation. If this is true this is BIG FREAKING NEWS! Who started the rumor that Spooz is rewriting STV2???????????????
WHERE DID YOU GET THIS INFORMATION????? WHERE DID YOU GET THAT STV2 CAN'T BE USED AND IS BEING REWRITTEN!
Milo, where r u getting that Spooz has or is in the process of rewriting STV2????
Are you making this up?