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.
He said that eDigital would be manufacturing the headsets and they would also utilize their design expertise and technology.
With what money?
SoxFan,
Very good.
You've demonstrated to us all how thorough, pointed research is to be conducted.
The one question left open is the nature of the payment to e.Digital.
What I can glean from your information is e.Digital will be recording NRE service revenues and, if the product goes to market, some licensing or royalty payments.
Thanks!
You are a graphics designer, correct?
How then can the basic concept of prototype designs elude you?
You have never been selected by a company, along with a pool of others, to create a design?
The company then picks one design from the pool of submissions and uses that design. The originator of the design, depending on the terms of the contract and nature of the design, may or may not generate future royalty payments.
I imagine the contract is structured in a way that Softeq was awarded a development project, MP3 Headset, from HP. Softeq has contracted out some of the design and development work to e.Digital. Perhaps going so far as naming e.Digital as the contract-manufacturer of the product should HP decided to bring it to market.
So $50,000 in NRE service revenues from Softeq's contract with HP and, more importantly, endless speculation from the cult regarding EDIG's role as a contract-manufacturer.
Suffice it to say, if HP decided to bring the product to market, HP will be reticent to pay per unit licensing royalties to e.Digital for inclusion of the MicroOS and, further, given e.Digital's crumbling financial state, probably will select a contract-manufacturer with greater financial stability. Not one three weeks from burning through the remainder of their cash.
Manifest Destiny Interrupted
Egbert:
Why is that?
Posted by: But Anyway
In reply to: drhunt who wrote msg# 31460
Date:2/15/2003 2:04:01 AM
Post #of 31597
Through all the years, the one item that the bashers have failed to dissect, is the technology offered by this company...that which is patented.
On that matter, I have never seen anyone speak to the caliber of the technology offered nor have I seen a qualified and independent opinion of the same.
Why is that?
Not when viewed in the context of this:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=768557
Which was posted less than 30 minutes after my misunderstanding.
Comdisco was a classic rags to riches to rags story of a Greek Chicago man who built the company into a leasing powerhouse only to watch the finanacial condition of the company deteriorate under the tenure of his son who tried to turn it into a dot.com incubator during the bubble.
However since reemerging from bankruptcy the prospects of the company have reversed course and Warran Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has recently taken a position in the company.
sunsetstrip,
Okay, I can understand how it wouldn't concern you in the least bit.
No reason to be concerned that:
1) The June 1999 EDIG 10K reported a 2.5% position in JABRA.
2) In May 2000 GN announced the acquisition of JABRA for $40 million plus possibly an additional $35 million.
3) The June 2000 EDIG 10K had absolutely no reference to JABRA, or the corporation's ownership in JABRA or total divestment of JABRA.
4) In August of 2000 the acquisition was completed.
5) The February 2001 EDIG 10Q refers to a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
6) Three of the four managers are still with the company, Elwood Norris being the exception.
Obviously the minimum amount of $1 million or maximum amount of $1.875 million would have benefitted the corporation, and the shareholders, a class of which you were and are, a heck more than the measly $30,124 it received.
The other question is who benefitted from $969,876-$1,844,876 in value that was misappropriated from the corporation?
Technological visionaries or your garden-variety corporate thieves?
More to come..
sunsetstrip,
These events transpired long before I bought my first edig shares. When I bought my first shares of edig in October, 1999 it was without any knowledge or concern of JABRA.
Then you were, as a shareholder, impacted by the JABRA issue.
Undoubtedly you reviewed the 10K filed in June of 1999 which stated "[t]he Company's 58,600 shares or approximately 2.5% investment in JABRA Corporation[...]"
Less than twelve months after this form was filed, in May of 2000 JABRA was acquired for $40 million plus earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million.
http://www.communitech.com/Manufacturer%20News/gn_netcom/GN_Netcom_may_22.htm
The acquisition was effective in August of 2000 for the original terms of the deal.
http://investor.gn.com/investor/ar2000_p11.html
Let's do some math here:
1) $40 million multiplied by "approximately 2.5%" equals "approximately" $1 million,
2) Earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million multiplied by "approximately 2.5%" equals "approximately" earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $875 thousand.
However the company's 10K filed in June of 2000 makes no mention of any position in JABRA nor does it disclose any transactions relating to the company's position in JABRA.
The approximate 2.5% ownership stake in JABRA disclosed on the 1999 10K is missing on the 2000 10K and there is no accounting for the "disappearance" of this approximately $1.875 million asset.
Oh, okay! The 10Q filed in February of 2001 does note the company recorded a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
Spreading FUD and casting aspersions? Right, nothing to be concerned about here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain and accuse 'But Anyway' of spreading FUD.
There is no reason for management to offer a public statement on this matter, none at all. This was all on the up-and-up, as the evidence clearly demonstrates.
An asset worth approximately $1,875,000 just gets up and walks off the balance sheets of the corporation under the nose of management and auditors and apparently reappears later as a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
Spreading FUD and casting aspersions? WRONG! Voicing LEGITIMATE concerns that current and past shareholders should DEMAND management of the corporation publicly explain. Let's not forget that three of the four key managerial positions then are filled by the same individuals today.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=748620
More to the point, the JABRA event had to pass the inspection of shareholders and the auditors years ago.
Just as Enron and Worldcom had to pass the inspection shareholders and auditors too? Your contention is laughable considering the recently uncovered scourge of auditor-encouraged, or overlooked, corruption of corporate management.
Why the ruckus now??
That's the problem with these OTC-BB companies. They are generally not followed by credible Wall Street analysts capable of diagnosing the financial statements and voicing concern. The individual investor is largely on his or her own to do the leg work and many are totally incapable of doing so.
What if I owed money to a company in bankruptcy to whom you were a creditor; would your feelings be equally as strong if an independent party brought my outstanding liability to your attention?
Would you judge the informant as "a psychotic sociopath whose delusions of grandeur mask inner feelings of worthlessness and impotence[?]"
I suspect not and therefore your perception of the situation is warped, unethical and may speak of your inward anger.
I hope this helps.
EDIT
Are you the same Tinroad that plastered your propaganda veiled as due diligence to the RagingBull EDIG thread one thousand times over?
/EDIT
Fantastic! I thank you. I am going to do the ethical thing and review whether the bankruptcy proceedings have taken the outstanding $515,000 into account. If not, I will write a note to the bankruptcy judge, attorneys, creditors et al. reminding them of the $515,000 owed by e.Digital to the company in bankruptcy.
I assume you will do the same.
sunsetstrip,
Know that I share your "want[.]"
You have demonstrated a willingness and adeptness at reviewing the financial statements.
I would be interested in reading any input, criticism, correction or otherwise regarding this analysis, specifically to the appropriateness of accounting and/or the potentially for misappropriation.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760024
The numbers in the analysis, other than those computations noted, can be corroborated by the cited financial filings.
sunsetstrip,
I stand corrected. Clearly the depth of my research was weak in this circumstance.
My understanding was clearly incorrect and I apologize for any consternation or misunderstanding arising from it.
EDIT: See, this is how an honest discussion regarding the company should be conducted. I posted a concern, you corrected my concern by offering factual evidence to the contrary, I apologized for my misunderstanding and admitted my fault. You, I and others walk away better because it it.
There is hope.
I found this interesting, and a rather precarious circumstance to the vitality of the corporation.
===================================================================
The property is sublet by Smith Industries Aerospace & Defense
Systems Inc. which is a subsidiary of large multinational company. Based on this fact, I believe it reasonable to conclude that Smith will provide e.Digital little lattitude in paying the outstanding lease liability come July 31st, 2003 expiring date.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000107299300000496/0001072993-00-000496-0003.txt
I will use July 31st, 2003 as e.Digital's expected expiration date.
Namequoit,
The results were published in the 10Q filings dated 11/14/03 and 08/14/02 respectively under "Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders".
Please note that the results of the proxy vote are deceptive as according to this copy of the proxy form, there is no voting category titled "against".
However this should not dissuade shareholders concerned about the veracity of the results from petitioning for a recount.
As to your question on how one might go about petitioning for a recount, I suggest asking the question to the Chairman of the Board of the company, as the Articles of Incorporation may include specific provisions speaking to the request for recount, and forwarding a copy of your petition for a recount to the Delaware Secretary of State.
EDIT: I would also seek clarification from a board member on why the proxy was absent of a "against" or "negative" category although the results account for a "negative" category. I would also inquire as to whether there is a different weighting to "negative votes" and "votes withheld" and, if there is, inquire further on why the proxy failed to provide a cateogory for "negative votes".
Any answers you receive can be corroborated with the Articles of Incorporation which should be on file with the State of Delaware.
In an effort to retire the subject at hand.
Anyone acting on my technical analysis made money at best and avoided loss at worse.
What more are you asking for?
Your reply was in the grand tradition of Robert Putnam...I gave you 4 posts to be specific. Why don't you just come out and say that you were wrong about your TA?
My definition of technical analysis: a study of price and volume in an effort to generate financial gain and avoid loss.
My technical analysis of EDIG stock has met the criteria of my definition.
The immaturity and condescending tone of your response is noted.
Namequoit,
Considering when the solicitation for proxy vote for the board of directors was held, three of the six board of directors up for reelection also served at a managerial capacity - your concern is warranted.
I am rather astounded that there were no negative votes for any of the the board of directors seeking reelection in light of the company's abysmal performance over the past year and years prior.
If I were a shareholder of the corporation, I would petition for a recount of the votes, to be conducted, or supervised, by an independent party.
================================================================
In light of the company's poor execution, I find it rather amazing that over the course of the last two votes for the BOD, there have been no negative votes submitted.
It is especially amazing when taking into consideration there are no benefical owners of the company (owning 5% or greater of the outstanding stock) and insiders control approximately 2% of the outstanding shares.
sunsetstrip,
Unless you are willing to criticize specifics, do not expect me to explain and defend.
While my price target did not arrive on my time projection, those who may have acted on my technical analysis are no worse off today and in fact have avoided a month of churn - and given the opportunity to allocate monies in investment vehicles yielding a positive rate of return.
Having said that, I stand by my downside target however at this time I am reticent to offer a projection on when my target will arrive.
Your selective omission of certain posts suggests the intent of your query is not for additional explanation but rather to defame.
http://investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=663933
sunsetstrip,
Your appreciation for my concern is noted.
On your other matter, technical analysis is what it is. Your opinion on technical analysis or your criticism of my application of technical analysis may be worthless and erroneous.
What's a self-proclaimed market genius (or whatever term you would like to use) like yourself hanging around the edig boards?
Being one myself, I am a strong advocate for the rights of the independent shareholder of publicly-traded corporations.
Under the pretense that many shareholders are oblivious to the rights of their ownership, far too many management teams abuse the trust of the shareholders to whom they owe a fiduciary responsibility.
I am here to remind e.Digital shareholders they have a voice, a very strong one at that, and a right to petition management where ever approriate. As an example, I have taken notice to the many times Robert Putnam has employed the excuse of non-disclosure agreements as a subterfuge to legitimate questions from shareholders. In some capacity, shareholders can petition management to supply evidence of the non-disclosure agreement, censored where appropriate, instead of simply accepting the answer as is.
Shareholders should exercise their rights and petition management for transparency on the paper filing with the SEC dated 01/15/03.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=E+DIGITAL&CIK=&filenum=&State=&SIC=&....
The filing was made pursuant to Regulation D Section 4(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 which exempts from registration:
transactions involving offers or sales by an issuer solely to one or more accredited investors, if the aggregate offering price of an issue of securities offered in reliance on this paragraph does not exceed the amount allowed under section 3(b) [$5,000,000], if there is no advertising or public solicitation in connection with the transaction by the issuer or anyone acting on the issuer's behalf, and if the issuer files such notice with the Commission as the Commission shall prescribe.
My understanding is e.Digital has issued unregistered securities to an accredited investor.
To reitterate- shareholders should request further information speaking to the amount of shares sold and proceeds raised. The direct importance of this matter is compounded by the adustable conversion price provisions of the recently issued Series D Preferred Stock.
Through all the years, the one item that the bashers have failed to dissect, is the technology offered by this company...that which is patented.
On that matter, I have never seen anyone speak to the caliber of the technology offered nor have I seen a qualified and independent opinion of the same.
Why is that?
Rethink your statement - and as to your question, clarify your definition of "it[.]"
Are you an accountant or attorney specializing in securities law? If the answer is no, then your opinion that it is a "dead issue" is without merit.
As long as you and I do not engage in personal attacks and keep the focus of our messages on e.Digital, I post what I want to post and you post what you want to post. These are the rules, whether you agree with them or not.
I would not invest a dime in this company until management, through a public statement, decisively cleared the air of the JABRA issue.
Allow me to provide some color on the situation.
JABRA, prior to the acquisition, was a private corporation.
On July 15, 1993 "as a result of the lack of operating control, the Company [EDIG] ceased consolidating JABRA’s operations and recorded its investment on the cost basis because it no longer had significant influence over the operations of JABRA."
As of March 1996 EDIG's ownership in JABRA was valued, on the cost method of accounting, at nil.
The final sale was originally recorded, as a gain on the sale of investment, on the company's 10Q filed February 14th, 2001.
Per the following May 22nd, 2000 press release announcing GN's acquisition of JABRA; "JABRA's revenues have grown more than ten times over the last 3 years, from less than $4 million in 1998 to more than $40 million projected in 2000."
http://www.communitech.com/Manufacturer%20News/gn_netcom/GN_Netcom_may_22.htm
My concern surrounds the inconsistency and irregularity in accounting for the asset and the contrast between the declining value e.Digital was receiving for divesting the asset and the rapid growth in JABRA's sales.
I have been reading and analysing Financial Statements my whole life.
Maybe you would be interested in this:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760137
And perhaps comment on the potentiality of asset misappropriation, accounting irregularities or both.
Don't peddle your hyperbole on unwitting investors, current or prospective, and I won't buy the stock. Deal?
Or one could look at it another way. If you are left to dreaming because the situation so dire and deteriorating, it is probably time to rethink your decision for investing.
Your "dreams" have no influence on the way this company is managed. It is managed poorly (criminally?), always has been and always will be and only a miracle (gutting the company of the current management to start) can change this. If you are "dreaming" that the miracle presents itself, you would be better served "investing" in lottery tickets.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760024
From the 10Q filing for the period ending December 31st, 2002 (one and one half months ago from today):
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/886328/000116923203001168/d53551_10q.htm
Since March 31, 2002, we have experienced significant losses and negative cash flow from operations. The Company’s current working capital is sufficient to fund operations for the next two months. Our current operating plans, including our plans to market to OEMs, require additional funds which may take the form of debt or equity financings. There can be no assurance that any additional funds will be available to our company on satisfactory terms and conditions, if at all. Our company’s ability to continue as a going concern is in substantial doubt and is dependent upon achieving a profitable level of operations and, if necessary, obtaining additional financing.
You have uncovered the deficiency in your logic.
You erroneously consider that your interpretation of the terms of use is final, and, further, compound this misconception by acting upon your flawed logic that breaching the terms of use is an acceptable response to those who you consider to have done the same.
Spend a minute thinking about it.
Ironically, while demanding the rules be catered to their interests, many violated basic IHub terms of use.
Instead of civilly debating the issue, collectively, they threw a conniption fit and engaged in the behaviorism they were allegedly protesting against (disruption, off-topic, personal attacks). Duh.
You have aptly demonstrated your ability to apply the word. Congratulations are in order.
does anyone really use the word "besmirch"? Let alone a layman?
Yes, I do.
In laymen's terms (note that I am attempting to retire the subject at hand), you have attempted to besmirch the character of another, on account of the subject individual's usage of the English Language, while butchering the same.
You are a hypocrite and therefore your opinion on the subject is rendered worthless.
THINK about it.
Your conclusion is noted, however your ad hominem argument is duly noted.
Think about it; assuming you have the capacity to think, which, as evidenced by the thread herein, is questionable.
Yes and your clarification is null and void considering the hypocrisy of your argument.
As I said before, spend a minute thinking about it. Or don't.
Do you judge others by the same criteria on which you judge yourself?
Obviously not, as evidenced by the post to which I am replying.
Spend a minute thinking about it.
Matt, I am flattered by your statements but know that I try to interpret the rebuttal of individuals incapable of articulating their opinion, and address the implied reasoning of their refutation.
One's command over compiling their thoughts into text, or the lack thereof, does not define the veracity of their opinion.