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.
Are you implying the subject individual has misapplied the English Language?
If so, you are mistaken.
And to think, all of the hell I've caught over the last few days is over you and your friend.
You brought this upon yourself. It is wholly inappropriate for you to blame me for you catching "hell". The decision to do so was your's and your's alone. I never demanded protection. I never demanded the voices of those who's opinion may run contrary to my own be muted. All I have asked is that enforcement of censorship be judicious.
I know the underbelly of that board and live and breathe multiplie aliases. What you are accusing them of is utter tripe. It doesn't exist.
Underbelly of what thread? I was referring to the Yahoo! EDIGConversation thread. If you are implying the number of those who have made the exodus to other threads is consistent with the number of members of the IHub EDIG thread, I then stand corrected. However, if true, this only reinforces the undying dedication of "the cult" and the power wielded over them by the more persuasive and vocal thought police.
It's you and your ilk that have the multiple aliases.
My ilk? Those who posit a articulate and exhaustive analysis on the topic at hand?
I have to delete someone every freaking night that signs up to post on that board to post 3 messages of copy/paste of worthless crap.
Then by definition this is not someone of my ilk.
Not the mention the fact that none of you will ever sign up with your real names (I know yours is false, TOF admitted her registration was false to me privately).
I am reticent to provide anyone my personal information as, over my tenure with investors of e.Digital, I have received death threats and a number of other unnerving allusions to threats of violence and unwarranted legal threats in abuse of the spirit of the law.
If providing personal information is a rule you steadfastly stand-by, I suggest you terminate my account immediately.
Oh, let's not forget, you yourself openly admit that you used, what, 8+ aliases?
Yes but you will note that I never actively posted with more than one alias. I opened accounts because you consistently deleted them in light of my words being deemed unpalatable by e.Digital investors. You deliberated and decided to change your position, in turn allowing my account to remain active as long as I act within the TOU and attach my CoP for a one month period. Now you are seeing the fallout of your decision to do so, the cult chokes on any reasonable criticism of their deity.
You are really making a fool of yourself, as well as making a complete idiot out of me for trying to support your stance on posting negatively.
Then reverse your position, abandon the spirit of The Constitution and allow an environment conducive to virtual boiler rooms. At the very least be an apt administrator of this website; take a position, stand by it, and deal with the repercussions arising from the inability to appease eveyone. I will honor your decision, whatever it may be.
Do I need to start reading and verifying your posts to see if you just that crap is just as mixed up?
Do you need to? No, others more capable are doing the same. Having said that, it might interest you in the context of an investor.
What you apparently fail to understand is anywhere the spirit of First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America is embraced, individuals will take exception to your conspiracy to peddle worthless paper onto unwitting investors.
125 people have signed up? When we discount for multiple-aliases, how many have really signed up? 15? 20? While the rest are aliases used to manipulate sentiment and create the false impression of strong interest in the opinions of participants of the group?
I move on to dismantle the next inflated whiffle-bag of a company that employs promoters operating in virtual boiler rooms to bilk unwitting investors out of their savings.
SLGLF is the most recent notch on my belt.
I began my due diligence process in October. By November my research indicated sufficient cause for concern. In mid-January I began to post my findings to public message threads. On January 21st WorldNet Daily picked up on the story, issuing a scathing report alluding to fraud and the stock was smoked for 50% the next day.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30603
EDIT: The following dialogue describes my motivation better than I ever could:
>>Riddle me this...??
Why do you post this outdated information? It was made available to all of us last year when it was issued. Do you not think that we can read? If you cannot post anything that is current and of prime inportance to share holders...don't. A wise man once said "It is better to keep ones mouth closed, and appear the fool...than to open it, and prove you are one".
>>I'll tell you why...
As I said I may be looking to trade this a bit, so if you can't read and figure it out for yourself, don't say I didn't warn you, I'll take your money too and walk away with a clear conscience knowing that I told you but you didn't listen.
Further, it appears that way you and BA post, there's nothing more satisfying to both of you than absolutely dominating a board, no?
Incorrect, I am only interested in an honest debate and that the rules of the debate are enforced judiciously.
IF you do your homework and actively follow the EDIG board before opening your mouth on things like this, you'd know there is plenty negativity by many folks who understand and acknowledge both sides.
I understand you are running a business here but the fact that the e.Digital thread completely collapsed on account of a handful of relatively well articulated criticisms of the manner in which the company is managed doesn't fascinate you?
It demonstrates just how thin the conviction of the "longs" is and calls into the question the true intent for the thread of some of the more vocal and irate thought police. Was it a place for like-minded individuals to commiserate or a virtual boiler room where criticism of the company undermines the agenda? There are some ear marks that the e.Digital thread was perceived as a "business" to some.
=================================================================
<a href='read_msg.asp?message_id=757193'>#msg-757193</a>
<a href='read_msg.asp?message_id=763080'>#msg-763080</a>
>>IH Admin (Matt), I have a question to ask you ?
Why do people want to post on the EDIG board that doesn't own any stock in the company ? A lot of share holders that own EDIG stock are way down in their investments and these people keep trying to dig up stuff to try and kill the stock to keep people from investing in the company. It burns me up inside, because I own stock and have my hard earned money invested in the stock. I don't post very often, but this is the Pits that they want to come over here and disrupt another EDIG board. If they owned stock and were down in their investments they wouldn't appreciate someone allways downing the company and the stock to keep people away from investing. I know that if the company can keep on tract then the stock will eventually come back. All this wrangling is for the birds and I would not put up with all the problems ya'll are having.
arkie
>>And at the heart of ihub's success, with regard to the EDIG board, are the controls in place which successfully deal with those whose sole purpose is to disrupt and distract the discussion of the business of the company between investors and potential investors.
DABOSS
=================================================================
[D]isrupt and distract the discussion of the business of the company between investors and potential investors.
So messages like my own disrupt and distract the discussion between investors and potential investors.
Read that again.
Between promoters of a multi-level marketing or ponzi schemes and their marks.
Which brings up a particularly interesting and valid question. If the message thread function of InvestorsHub was leveraged to orchestrate a pump and dump, and though the ring leaders acted within the TOU, would you allow this conduct to continue on your site? I would hope not as it would expose InvestorsHub, Inc. and it's managing executives to legal liability no matter how inclusive you disclaimers may be.
For future reference purposes.
Note that e.Digital in fact did exceed their publicly stated revenue guidance (revenue guidance the only financial guidance forthcoming from the subject company) issued January 16th, 2003.
This updated guidance provided herein, in direct violation of Regulation Fair Disclosure, was not disseminated in a public communique but selectively to individual private investors.
http://www.agoracom.com/nonmemforum/msgreview.asp?id=237900&refid=0&orig=237900
Subject: VoiceNav
From sunpoop
PostID 237900 On Wednesday, February 12, 2003 (EST) at 3:48:21 PM
I sent Robert and email regarding concerns I have noted here and elsewhere about the ''glitches'' with VoicNav, especially the one from the ''revue'' just posted from Shoshana. He called me on the phone within 10 minutes.
(An aside: Anyone who is interested: Robert Putnam takes his job seriously. He has told me that ANYONE who wants to talk about EDig, he will talk to. Just call or email him, he WILL call you back)
He told me this problem has come up in the recent past and with EVERY, THAT'S EVERY call back to determine exactly what was wrong it turned out to be operator error, or failure to follow instructions, or not knowing exactly how to use O1K.
He mentioned that the engineers loaded the O1K and worked it to its max and had NO PROBLEMS with it. The Voicennav worked perfectly. He has a call into Shoshanna as we speak to find out what her problem was and hopefully to correct it and get her to redo that part of her revue which he said was very positive.
The 10Q will be out by Friday: Will be BETTER, that's BETTER than reported and an announcement next week about another Webcast will be made..
DW is having very good success with it version and is in a similar circumstance as EDig regarding its units out for revue....Positive revues....
More was discussed but I was so unprepared for his call that I failed to take notes.
Frank
Excellent point however it is fair to conclude the contract is void of provisions speaking to specific or reasonably expected dollar amounts other than the NRE figures. I have also noted that e.Digital removed the portion of their FAQ section that inferred the "total value of the initial order is $1,000,000". I am interested in the management's reasons for removing said disclosure.
I will state that e.Digital is exposing itself to undue risk by not including a statement of safe harbor provisions pursuant to Private Securities Litigation Reform of 1995 in the body of the FAQ page.
EDIT: e.Digital's purchase order with DigitalWay provides an excellent supply agreement comparative.
On March 25, 2002, the Company entered into a supply agreement with Digitalway, one of its contract manufacturers, and has agreed in good faith to purchase a minimum of approximately $5.96 million of product in the twelve-month period from initial order date. The Company began to purchase products from Digitalway in the quarter ending December 31, 2002 and has received approximately $136,000 of products through December 31, 2002.
sricket:
No, it is all a mystery to me. You see I cannot dechiper the meaning of the alien characters below. I suspect the answer is therein however I simply do not possess the competency to unlock the hidden meaning. Do you know if this is what they call hieroglyphics?
Any help you can supply is welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Company has entered into a three-year fulfillment, storage and freight management agreement with APL Direct Logistics ending on December 31, 2004. As part of this agreement, the Company provided APL Direct Logistics with a letter of credit amounting to $144,724 ($nil at December 31, 2002) and prepaid $90,000 to APL Direct Logistics for inbound and outbound freight management services which will be drawn down upon submission of invoices from APL. The Company also paid APL Direct Logistics $14,000 for initial integration and implementation expenses. In June 2002, the Company made a payment of $35,000 to APL Direct Logistics as an additional prepayment for freight management. Under the agreement, the Company’s minimum monthly commitment, which includes call center support, is approximately $46,000. In September 2002, the Company notified APL that it is terminating the agreement. At September 30, 2002, approximately $51,922 of finished goods inventory was held at APL Direct Logistics’ facilities. In the quarter ending December 31, 2002, APL drew down on $129,925 of the letter of credit and sold the Company’s inventory, with a value of $51,992 to reduce the Company’s obligations to APL. After applying $21,668, the balance in the prepaid freight management at APL, at December 31, 2002, the Company believes that the total amount due to APL is $78,392 and has been recorded as a current liability. Settlement of this liability may be either more or less than the amount recorded in the consolidated financial statements and accordingly may be subject to measurement uncertainty in the near term.
-------------------------------------------------------------
You do know how to read, correct? If the answer is yes, then rethink your question.
Wow, APL really smoked e.Digital.
The Company has entered into a three-year fulfillment, storage and freight management agreement with APL Direct Logistics ending on December 31, 2004. As part of this agreement, the Company provided APL Direct Logistics with a letter of credit amounting to $144,724 ($nil at December 31, 2002) and prepaid $90,000 to APL Direct Logistics for inbound and outbound freight management services which will be drawn down upon submission of invoices from APL. The Company also paid APL Direct Logistics $14,000 for initial integration and implementation expenses. In June 2002, the Company made a payment of $35,000 to APL Direct Logistics as an additional prepayment for freight management. Under the agreement, the Company’s minimum monthly commitment, which includes call center support, is approximately $46,000. In September 2002, the Company notified APL that it is terminating the agreement. At September 30, 2002, approximately $51,922 of finished goods inventory was held at APL Direct Logistics’ facilities. In the quarter ending December 31, 2002, APL drew down on $129,925 of the letter of credit and sold the Company’s inventory, with a value of $51,992 to reduce the Company’s obligations to APL. After applying $21,668, the balance in the prepaid freight management at APL, at December 31, 2002, the Company believes that the total amount due to APL is $78,392 and has been recorded as a current liability. Settlement of this liability may be either more or less than the amount recorded in the consolidated financial statements and accordingly may be subject to measurement uncertainty in the near term.
Great, thank you for the reply.
As to your statement: [n]icely worded to get your point across (I'm starting to understand why folks don't like you).
Know that I find some satisfaction when my position runs contrary to the consensus opinion. I am a contrarian by nature.
You like doing that, eh? Scatter gun approach works well.
As to the tone of your message, I thought the topic appropriate for the 'Question and Answer Board'. Apparently you felt otherwise or read deeper into the intent of my post (though I do feel Tinroad has abused his authority, however I understand that how I feel carries little weight, and appropriately so as I am but one voice).
Somebody needs to fix this mess,
assuming the only solution isn't another three years or so of paper asset deflation.
To InvestorsHub:
Is there a standard to which the Chairman of the Board is held?
I am aware of the terms of use for individual members however are there rules a CoB must adhere to or is the CoB generally granted free rein in censoring posts without the deterrence of penaty should the CoB be found in abuse of their duty?
In other words, if I consistenty post off-topic or personal attacks I am relegated to the JAIL thread. The "high profile" nature of the JAIL thread appears to act as a deterrence to violating IHub rules.
If a CoB is found to be abusing their authority by frequently deleting posts that are within IHub's TOU, is their authority usurped and the position replaced with a more apt member?
How is the new CoB selected? Do the participating members of the thread vote among a group of those willing to fill the empty position?
Just throwing out some questions in an effort to spark dialogue on this subject.
Allow me then to illustrate Tinroad's precedent set for the "proper way to dispute a posting" by working backward:
Posted by: Tinroad
In reply to: D.inkie who wrote msg# 31169
Date:2/13/2003 7:13:02 AM
Post #of 31195
My thanks to D.inkie and TWOMIL for demonstrating the proper way to dispute a posting. The post in question will remain deleted due to the unqualified (and unsupported) claim re iPod.
Here is one of the two posts that falls under Tinroad's criteria for the proper way to dispute a posting:
Posted by: TWOMIL
In reply to: A deleted message
Date:2/13/2003 2:14:02 AM
Post #of 31195
Fact/Fiction:
When you write the following noted below, it demonstrates you are fully aware that e-mails and calls you make to eDigital partners can have a 'pestering' effect and can be disruptive to the good relationships eDigital has with their partners. Whatever your self-serving motives to be seen as 'right', your admission that your pestering behavior can interfere with eDigital's conduct of their business, IMO, leaves you wide
open to litigation directed at you by both shareholders and the company for this conduct.
Thanks for hanging yourself out to dry.
"To Tinroad and GoSilver" by FactorFiction
"Have no worry, I will call anyone that I need to verify my posts if you are going to hold me to the higher standard that you seem to indicate. However, as you both know, e.Digital's partners have always been inududated with such requests and it does not always make for good relationships. Let me know if you are going to maintain this standard for me and I will let those I call know why I am having to pester the executives of e.Digital's partners. In fact, I will send them links to this board."
Beyond abusing the spirit of the law by inappropriately threatening legal action (TWOMIL would be defined as a shareholder of e.Digital therefore the threat is implied), where in this message has the subject individual properly disputed the message in question?
Unfortunately the message which TWOMIL, under Tinroad's definition has disputed properly, was deleted. Leaving members of the community to dogmatically trust that Tinroad has properly enforced his new rule pertaining to proper argumentation.
Please read the deleted message and tell me, whether by Tinroad's definition of proper argumentation or by IHub's definition of terms of use, whose message, TWOMIL's or the author of the deleted message, warranted censorship, if either.
Bob I take no particular exception to rules enacted for specific threads by moderators of the thread or the conditions of posting of IHub if they are enforced judiciously. In this case, and in many cases pertaining to the EDIG thread, they have not.
The moderators of the EDIG thread, and those demanding a narrow TOU application on critical messages, endeavor to create a virtual boiler room.
But Anyway...
Bob, I have presented my case.
I have intentionally been ignoring the blatant accounting irregularities and inconsistencies in an effort to focus on reasons why they may exist.
When you have a free minute, glance at the contents of the post referenced below.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760137
While I do not expect you to render a judgement on potentiality of misappropriation or misrepresentation however I have come to respect your opinion (you are very level headed IMO) and would be acutely interested in reading of your initial impression.
At the very least, the management of the company owes past and present shareholders, as well as the public market, a detailed explanation of this issue. From what I have gathered, when shareholders have inquired into why the corporation's percentage of ownership interest in the asset inexplicably dropped, they were stonewalled with some balderdash concerning reverse-splits and the like. Red flag.
As I have said elsewhere, if the asset concluded as meaningless or the management team since exponged from the company, the issue would be moot. However neither is the case, in fact the value of the asset (the performance of the underlying company), by all verifiable outside sources, was growing just as transparency of accounting for the divestiture began to deteriorate. Red flag.
The smoking gun is the dramatic ninety percent drop in the implied value of the asset (the value to e.Digital in consideration for parting with a percentage of their ownership) over a period of less than one year ending "on or about December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997" (smell some tax reporting implications here? Red flag.). This drop in implied value does not correlate with the performance of the underlying company of the asset and calls into the question whether the divestiture of the corporation's asset were conducted in arm's length transactions.
I digress.
I believe I have adequately presented reason for concern (in fact "I know", however I won't get into that at this juncture), and concern sufficient to explore this issue more exhaustively with those interested in the same (ie. EDIG Thread, collective effort) without the constant threat of my posts facing deletion under "spam" rules.
Unfortunatley Tom ("Tinroad") has recently changed the rules of the EDIG thread, his intent is to benefit his motive in keeping "negativity" off the thread. Specifically, under his new rules, a post can now be deleted if it is not exhaustively referenced and documented with facts. However this rule is being broadly applied to what may be construed as negative messages and rarely, if ever, messages with the opposite tone. In other words he is once again censoring the thread although this time he is rationalizing his actions (to you and Matt) based on some bogus rule that is being injudiciously enforced.
Bob, Matt, you have a group of swindlers (not all on the thread but some, especially those who demand the voice of others be moderated) desperately struggling to juggle the last few balls of a failing ponzi-like scheme, running their nefarious business on YOUR site. The message threads are their instrument to bait new marks. Negative or more critical voices threaten to impede with their agenda.
Case in point, DABOSS, one of the more notorious and vocal promoters:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=757193
"And at the heart of ihub's success, with regard to the EDIG board, are the controls in place which successfully deal with those whose sole purpose is to disrupt and distract the discussion of the business of the company between investors and potential investors."
(This message has quickly turned overly dramatic so I will end it with a stupid phrase before I bid adieu to the issues entirely)
Bob, you are either with us or you are against us.
Regards,
A couple were on topic - a couple not. However, in one of them he IMPLIED that we were under an SEC investigation.
No I did not, I never implied the company was under investigation by the SEC. In fact I pointed out that the SEC rarely discloses investigations that are ongoing and therefore I, nor anyone else, should have the capacity of knowing whether a company is under investigation or not.
What I did say is the possible asset embezzlement and accounting irregularities are a matter that concerns the SEC. Concern defined as the SEC is the agency who is charged with handling these matters. Just as suspicious individuals in your neighborhood are the concern of your local law enforcement office.
Having said all that, it doesn't concern (LOL) you in the least bit that your beloved company may be managed by individuals with the propensity to embezzle assets from the company and disregard standard accounting procedures? No, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, it's the big, bad evil 'But Anyway' on whom we need to focus our ire.
Technical Analysis is built on a fundemental[SIC] principle: The market discounts all.
I never said anything to the contrary.
What I stated was technical analysis is fluid because price and volume data are dynamic.
Technical analysis does not endeavor to discount future price and volume data, it attempts to provide a probability of occurrence on the future of that data.
The first rule of digging yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.
Your personal attack is unwarranted. I accept your apology.
Good Day
As I exhaustively explained to you long ago, technical analysis of markets is fluid.
Revisions are common as new data alters the dynamic landscape.
Today is an example of new data dramatically altering the landscape.
Hope this helps.
Price closing above the 50dMA, volume increasing and a strong move higher in a tight bollinger band environment changes the technical picture.
I am revising my near-term rating of sell to a rating of hold. The long-term rating, based on fundamental picture, remains strong-sell.
"Unless you are a current or former insider, I don't think you could possibly know all the detail"
True, however where there is smoke (accounting irregularities) there is usually fire.
If JABRA concluded as a meaningless asset this entire issue would be moot and the immediate need for clarification unnecessary, however this is not the case and management's tactic of employing smokescreens and answers deceptive in their intent only raises the cause for concern.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=760137
I am flattered by your attention and I welcome any contact with the SEC, in fact I speak with agents of the organization frequently.
You see, I play within the rules and the SEC takes no issue or interest in those who do the same.
Did I state the SEC or other federal agencies are pursuing this issue? No, I did not say that.
I simply said this issue concerns the SEC and other organizations mandated to protect the individual investor.
Further, the SEC does not comment on nor disclose investigations so you nor I would be aware of any investigation of this situation until and unless action was taken.
(UPDATE)
This is still a work in progress so please excuse any incompleteness.
EDIG 10K filed 19960628
Part I, Item 1, History, Paragraph 3
On January 15, 1993, the Company sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $750,000, and JABRA sold 500,000 newly issued common shares with warrants for $1.25 million. The Company retained 2,300,000 common shares or 74.2% of JABRA stock and the Company agreed to surrender operating control of JABRA pursuant to the stock sale agreement[REF A]. On July 15, 1993, the Company sold an additional 500,000 common shares for $1.625 million and JABRA sold 1,000,000 newly issued common shares for $3.25 million. The Company’s 1,800,000 common shares represented 42.8% of the outstanding shares of JABRA and as a result of the lack of operating control, the Company 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. At March 31, 1996, the Company had a zero cost basis in its 1,800,000 JABRA common shares[REF B]. During fiscal 1995 and 1996, JABRA reported to the Company the sale of 1,154,671 newly issued common shares for proceeds of $4.0 million. As a result of these transactions, the Company’s ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1996, represented by 1,800,000 common shares, is 23.1% (or 20.1% on a fully diluted basis). The Company has granted an option to purchase 300,000 of the JABRA common shares to CVD Financial Corporation (“CVD”)[REF C].
Notes:
1. Implied value is derived from dividing the value received for the sale of JABRA stock by the number of shares sold by EDIG/JABRA. Example: sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for
$750,000 ($750,000 / 300,000 shares = $2.50 per share multiplied by the total JABRA shares outstanding, pertaining to this example, 3,100,000 = an implied value of $7,775,000).
2. e.Digital agrees to surrender operating control of JABRA.
3. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,000,000 to 4,100,000. JABRA shares held by EDIG decreases by 500,000 to 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 4,100,000 equals a controlling percentage of 43.9%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 42.8%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 105,607 to 4,205,607 (1,800,000 / 4,205,607 = 42.8%).
4. e.Digital ceases consolidating JABRA’s operations and records the JABRA investment at a cost basis of zero because “it no longer had significant influence over the operations of JABRA.”
5 & 6. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,154,671 to 5,360,278. JABRA shares held by EDIG remain at 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 5,360,278 equals a controlling percentage of 33.6%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 23.1%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 2,431,929 to 7,792,207 (1,800,000 / 7,792,207 = 23.1%).
7. The same calculations as notes 5 & 6 on a fully-diluted basis.
EDIG 10K filed 19970626
Part I, Item 1, History, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, INVESTMENT IN JABRA
Between January 15, 1993 and March 31, 1996 the Company sold an aggregate of 800,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $2,375,000 and owned 1,800,000 JABRA shares with a zero cost basis. On or about December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997, the Company sold an additional 859,266 common shares of JABRA stock for $276,300. As a result of these transactions, the Company's ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1997, represented by 940,734 common shares, was 12.1%. Accordingly, the
Company exercises no control over the shares of JABRA. [REF D] JABRA is a private company engaged in developing, manufacturing and marketing cellular, desktop, mobile and wireless communications products. JABRA's principal technology is the patented "all-in-the-ear" EarPHONE technology originally conceived and developed by the Company when JABRA was a wholly owned subsidiary. As a minority shareholder in JABRA, which has reported operating losses since its inception, there can be no assurance as to when or if the Company's remaining shares can
produce any financial return to the Company. The Company's investment in JABRA shares is carried on its balance sheet at a cost of nil. CVD Financial Corporation has an option (until July 31, 1997) to purchase 300,000 of the Company's JABRA shares at a price of $1.50 per share granted in connection with a prior loan financing.
8. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA and retains 940,734 shares representing a controlling interest of 12.1%. This figures indicate the JABRA shares outstanding are 7,774,661 (940,734 / .121 = 7,774,661) and creates a discrepancy with our previous calculations of JABRA shares outstanding, on both the undiluted and fully-diluted basis. Clearly e.Digital has made a reporting error on either one or more of “items” labeled x,y and z. The current inferred JABRA float (z) correlates best to the JABRA float calculated in item x.
9. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA raising proceeds of $276,300. JABRA’s implied value has dropped to $0.32 ($276,300 / 859,266 shares = $0.32 per share) or a total implied value of $2,499,969 based on the JABRA shares outstanding calculated using the data in this filing (item z). This is the lowest implied value on record and a 90% drop from the implied value calculated in item x and a 92% drop from the implied value calculated in item z. This significant drop in implied value has occurred over a one year period.
EDIG S3 filed 19980220
The Company, 2nd Paragraph from the Bottom
The Company also holds as an investment 62,000 common shares (less than 5%) of JABRA. JABRA is a former wholly-owned subsidiary of which control was sold in 1993.[REF E] JABRA is a developer and manufacturer of communication products for desktop, mobile and wireless applications.
11. Per the filing, e.Digital’s controlling percentage of e.Digital has dropped to less than 5%, or 62,000 shares, equating to a maximum possible number of JABRA shares outstanding of no more than 1,200,000. Over the course of eight months, between filing dates of the SEC documents referenced, e.Digital’s percentage of ownership in JABRA has dropped from 12.1% to “less than 5%”. This drop in ownership is not accounted for in this SEC filing.
12. Although not disclosed in any e.Digital SEC filings, e.Digital management has recently stated that JABRA instituted a “number” of reverse-splits during the company’s time prior to being acquired. One or more of these stated reverse-splits apparently, judging by the drop in the calculated JABRA shares outstanding, occurred during a period between June 1997 and February 1998. For illustration purposes, using a calculation based on e.Digital’s ratio of ownership of 12.1% prior to this filing and drawing the assumption this ratio remained constant during the reverse-splits (in reality either EDIG sold shares or JABRA issued new shares as reflected by the drop in EDIG’s percentage owned) e.Digital would have retained 145,200 after the reserve-split(s) were effective ([1,200,000 * 940,734] / 7,774,661) or illustrating that one share of JABRA was exchanged for appoximately 0.15 shares as a result of the reverse-split(s).
EDIG 10K filed 19980626
Notes to consolidated financial statements, Item 8, Investment in JABRA, Page 43.
The Company owns 58,600 common shares of JABRA or approximately 2.5% of JABRA's common shares with a carrying value of $Nil on the Company's consolidated balance sheets[REF F]. During 1997, the Company sold 859,266 common shares of JABRA for cash proceeds of $276,300 and recorded a gain on sale of investment of $276,300.
EDIG 10K filed 19990628
INVESTMENT
The Company owns 58,600 common shares of JABRA or approximately 2.5% of JABRA's common shares with a carrying value of $Nil on the Company's consolidated balance sheets.
May 22, 2000
GN Netcom Acquires JABRA Corporation
The purchase price for JABRA is $40 million plus earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million.
EDIG 10K filed 20000627
No reference to JABRA or investment position in JABRA.
EDIG 10Q filed 20010214
For the period ending June 30th, 2000 e.Digital recorded a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
This is still a work in progress so please excuse any incompleteness.
EDIG 10K filed 19960628
Part I, Item 1, History, Paragraph 3
On January 15, 1993, the Company sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $750,000, and JABRA sold 500,000 newly issued common shares with warrants for $1.25 million. The Company retained 2,300,000 common shares or 74.2% of JABRA stock and the Company agreed to surrender operating control of JABRA pursuant to the stock sale agreement[REF A]. On July 15, 1993, the Company sold an additional 500,000 common shares for $1.625 million and JABRA sold 1,000,000 newly issued common shares for $3.25 million. The Company’s 1,800,000 common shares represented 42.8% of the outstanding shares of JABRA and as a result of the lack of operating control, the Company 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. At March 31, 1996, the Company had a zero cost basis in its 1,800,000 JABRA common shares[REF B]. During fiscal 1995 and 1996, JABRA reported to the Company the sale of 1,154,671 newly issued common shares for proceeds of $4.0 million. As a result of these transactions, the Company’s ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1996, represented by 1,800,000 common shares, is 23.1% (or 20.1% on a fully diluted basis). The Company has granted an option to purchase 300,000 of the JABRA common shares to CVD Financial Corporation (“CVD”)[REF C].
Notes:
1. Implied value is derived from dividing the value received for the sale of JABRA stock by the number of shares sold by EDIG/JABRA. Example: sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for
$750,000 ($750,000 / 300,000 shares = $2.50 per share multiplied by the total JABRA shares outstanding, pertaining to this example, 3,100,000 = an implied value of $7,775,000).
2. e.Digital agrees to surrender operating control of JABRA.
3. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,000,000 to 4,100,000. JABRA shares held by EDIG decreases by 500,000 to 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 4,100,000 equals a controlling percentage of 43.9%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 42.8%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 105,607 to 4,205,607 (1,800,000 / 4,205,607 = 42.8%).
4. e.Digital ceases consolidating JABRA’s operations and records the JABRA investment at a cost basis of zero because “it no longer had significant influence over the operations of JABRA.”
5 & 6. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,154,671 to 5,360,278. JABRA shares held by EDIG remain at 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 5,360,278 equals a controlling percentage of 33.6%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 23.1%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 2,431,929 to 7,792,207 (1,800,000 / 7,792,207 = 23.1%).
7. The same calculations as notes 5 & 6 on a fully-diluted basis.
EDIG 10K filed 19970626
Part I, Item 1, History, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, INVESTMENT IN JABRA
Between January 15, 1993 and March 31, 1996 the Company sold an aggregate of 800,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $2,375,000 and owned 1,800,000 JABRA shares with a zero cost basis. On or about December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997, the Company sold an additional 859,266 common shares of JABRA stock for $276,300. As a result of these transactions, the Company's ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1997, represented by 940,734 common shares, was 12.1%. Accordingly, the
Company exercises no control over the shares of JABRA. [REF D] JABRA is a private company engaged in developing, manufacturing and marketing cellular, desktop, mobile and wireless communications products. JABRA's principal technology is the patented "all-in-the-ear" EarPHONE technology originally conceived and developed by the Company when JABRA was a wholly owned subsidiary. As a minority shareholder in JABRA, which has reported operating losses since its inception, there can be no assurance as to when or if the Company's remaining shares can
produce any financial return to the Company. The Company's investment in JABRA shares is carried on its balance sheet at a cost of nil. CVD Financial Corporation has an option (until July 31, 1997) to purchase 300,000 of the Company's JABRA shares at a price of $1.50 per share granted in connection with a prior loan financing.
8. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA and retains 940,734 shares representing a controlling interest of 12.1%. This figures indicate the JABRA shares outstanding are 7,774,661 (940,734 / .121 = 7,774,661) and creates a discrepancy with our previous calculations of JABRA shares outstanding, on both the undiluted and fully-diluted basis. Clearly e.Digital has made a reporting error on either one or more of “items” labeled x,y and z. The current inferred JABRA float (z) correlates best to the JABRA float calculated in item x.
9. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA raising proceeds of $276,300. JABRA’s implied value has dropped to $0.32 ($276,300 / 859,266 shares = $0.32 per share) or a total implied value of $2,499,969 based on the JABRA shares outstanding calculated using the data in this filing (item z). This is the lowest implied value on record and a 90% drop from the implied value calculated in item x and a 92% drop from the implied value calculated in item z. This significant drop in implied value has occurred over a one year period.
EDIG S3 filed 19980220
The Company, 2nd Paragraph from the Bottom
The Company also holds as an investment 62,000 common shares (less than 5%) of JABRA. JABRA is a former wholly-owned subsidiary of which control was sold in 1993.[REF E] JABRA is a developer and manufacturer of communication products for desktop, mobile and wireless applications.
11. Per the filing, e.Digital’s controlling percentage of e.Digital has dropped to less than 5%, or 62,000 shares, equating to a maximum possible number of JABRA shares outstanding of no more than 1,200,000. Over the course of eight months, between filing dates of the SEC documents referenced, e.Digital’s percentage of ownership in JABRA has dropped from 12.1% to “less than 5%”. This drop in ownership is not accounted for in this SEC filing.
12. Although not disclosed in any e.Digital SEC filings, e.Digital management has recently stated that JABRA instituted a “number” of reverse-splits during the company’s time prior to being acquired. One or more of these stated reverse-splits apparently, judging by the drop in the calculated JABRA shares outstanding, occurred during a period between June 1997 and February 1998. For illustration purposes, using a calculation based on e.Digital’s ratio of ownership of 12.1% prior to this filing and drawing the assumption this ratio remained constant during the reverse-splits (in reality either EDIG sold shares or JABRA issued new shares as reflected by the drop in EDIG’s percentage owned) e.Digital would have retained 145,200 after the reserve-split(s) were effective ([1,200,000 * 940,734] / 7,774,661) or illustrating that one share of JABRA was exchanged for appoximately 0.15 shares as a result of the reverse-split(s).
EDIG 10K filed 19980626
Notes to consolidated financial statements, Item 8, Investment in JABRA, Page 43.
The Company owns 58,600 common shares of JABRA or approximately 2.5% of JABRA's common shares with a carrying value of $Nil on the Company's consolidated balance sheets[REF F]. During 1997, the Company sold 859,266 common shares of JABRA for cash proceeds of $276,300 and recorded a gain on sale of investment of $276,300.
May 22, 2000
GN Netcom Acquires JABRA Corporation
The purchase price for JABRA is $40 million plus earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million.
EDIG 10Q filed 20010214
For the period ending June 30th, 2000 e.Digital recorded a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
Shareholders of record for the period between 1997 and 2000, through their attorneys, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Judicial System of California and Delaware.
This is still a work in progress so please excuse any incompleteness.
EDIG 10K filed 19960628
Part I, Item 1, History, Paragraph 3
On January 15, 1993, the Company sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $750,000, and JABRA sold 500,000 newly issued common shares with warrants for $1.25 million. The Company retained 2,300,000 common shares or 74.2% of JABRA stock and the Company agreed to surrender operating control of JABRA pursuant to the stock sale agreement[REF A]. On July 15, 1993, the Company sold an additional 500,000 common shares for $1.625 million and JABRA sold 1,000,000 newly issued common shares for $3.25 million. The Company’s 1,800,000 common shares represented 42.8% of the outstanding shares of JABRA and as a result of the lack of operating control, the Company 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. At March 31, 1996, the Company had a zero cost basis in its 1,800,000 JABRA common shares[REF B]. During fiscal 1995 and 1996, JABRA reported to the Company the sale of 1,154,671 newly issued common shares for proceeds of $4.0 million. As a result of these transactions, the Company’s ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1996, represented by 1,800,000 common shares, is 23.1% (or 20.1% on a fully diluted basis). The Company has granted an option to purchase 300,000 of the JABRA common shares to CVD Financial Corporation (“CVD”)[REF C].
Notes:
1. Implied value is derived from dividing the value received for the sale of JABRA stock by the number of shares sold by EDIG/JABRA. Example: sold 300,000 common shares of JABRA stock for
$750,000 ($750,000 / 300,000 shares = $2.50 per share multiplied by the total JABRA shares outstanding, pertaining to this example, 3,100,000 = an implied value of $7,775,000).
2. e.Digital agrees to surrender operating control of JABRA.
3. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,000,000 to 4,100,000. JABRA shares held by EDIG decreases by 500,000 to 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 4,100,000 equals a controlling percentage of 43.9%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 42.8%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 105,607 to 4,205,607 (1,800,000 / 4,205,607 = 42.8%).
4. e.Digital ceases consolidating JABRA’s operations and records the JABRA investment at a cost basis of zero because “it no longer had significant influence over the operations of JABRA.”
5 & 6. Per the filing, JABRA shares outstanding increase by 1,154,671 to 5,360,278. JABRA shares held by EDIG remain at 1,800,000. 1,800,000 divided by 5,360,278 equals a controlling percentage of 33.6%. The filing cites the controlling percentage to be 23.1%. In order to reconcile between EDIG’s percentage of ownership and total shares held relative to outstanding shares, JABRA’s shares outstanding must be increased by 2,431,929 to 7,792,207 (1,800,000 / 7,792,207 = 23.1%).
7. The same calculations as notes 5 & 6 on a fully-diluted basis.
EDIG 10K filed 19970626
Part I, Item 1, History, 2nd paragraph from the bottom, INVESTMENT IN JABRA
Between January 15, 1993 and March 31, 1996 the Company sold an aggregate of 800,000 common shares of JABRA stock for $2,375,000 and owned 1,800,000 JABRA shares with a zero cost basis. On or about December 31, 1996 and January 2, 1997, the Company sold an additional 859,266 common shares of JABRA stock for $276,300. As a result of these transactions, the Company's ownership in JABRA at March 31, 1997, represented by 940,734 common shares, was 12.1%. Accordingly, the
Company exercises no control over the shares of JABRA. [REF D] JABRA is a private company engaged in developing, manufacturing and marketing cellular, desktop, mobile and wireless communications products. JABRA's principal technology is the patented "all-in-the-ear" EarPHONE technology originally conceived and developed by the Company when JABRA was a wholly owned subsidiary. As a minority shareholder in JABRA, which has reported operating losses since its inception, there can be no assurance as to when or if the Company's remaining shares can
produce any financial return to the Company. The Company's investment in JABRA shares is carried on its balance sheet at a cost of nil. CVD Financial Corporation has an option (until July 31, 1997) to purchase 300,000 of the Company's JABRA shares at a price of $1.50 per share granted in connection with a prior loan financing.
8. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA and retains 940,734 shares representing a controlling interest of 12.1%. This figures indicate the JABRA shares outstanding are 7,774,661 (940,734 / .121 = 7,774,661) and creates a discrepancy with our previous calculations of JABRA shares outstanding, on both the undiluted and fully-diluted basis. Clearly e.Digital has made a reporting error on either one or more of “items” labeled x,y and z. The current inferred JABRA float (z) correlates best to the JABRA float calculated in item x.
9. Per the filing, EDIG sells 859,266 shares of JABRA raising proceeds of $276,300. JABRA’s implied value has dropped to $0.32 ($276,300 / 859,266 shares = $0.32 per share) or a total implied value of $2,499,969 based on the JABRA shares outstanding calculated using the data in this filing (item z). This is the lowest implied value on record and a 90% drop from the implied value calculated in item x and a 92% drop from the implied value calculated in item z. This significant drop in implied value has occurred over a one year period.
EDIG S3 filed 19980220
The Company, 2nd Paragraph from the Bottom
The Company also holds as an investment 62,000 common shares (less than 5%) of JABRA. JABRA is a former wholly-owned subsidiary of which control was sold in 1993.[REF E] JABRA is a developer and manufacturer of communication products for desktop, mobile and wireless applications.
11. Per the filing, e.Digital’s controlling percentage of e.Digital has dropped to less than 5%, or 62,000 shares, equating to a maximum possible number of JABRA shares outstanding of no more than 1,200,000. Over the course of eight months, between filing dates of the SEC documents referenced, e.Digital’s percentage of ownership in JABRA has dropped from 12.1% to “less than 5%”. This drop in ownership is not accounted for in this SEC filing.
12. Although not disclosed in any e.Digital SEC filings, e.Digital management has recently stated that JABRA instituted a “number” of reverse-splits during the company’s time prior to being acquired. One or more of these stated reverse-splits apparently, judging by the drop in the calculated JABRA shares outstanding, occurred during a period between June 1997 and February 1998. For illustration purposes, using a calculation based on e.Digital’s ratio of ownership of 12.1% prior to this filing and drawing the assumption this ratio remained constant during the reverse-splits (in reality either EDIG sold shares or JABRA issued new shares as reflected by the drop in EDIG’s percentage owned) e.Digital would have retained 145,200 after the reserve-split(s) were effective ([1,200,000 * 940,734] / 7,774,661) or illustrating that one share of JABRA was exchanged for appoximately 0.15 shares as a result of the reverse-split(s).
EDIG 10K filed 19980626
Notes to consolidated financial statements, Item 8, Investment in JABRA, Page 43.
The Company owns 58,600 common shares of JABRA or approximately 2.5% of JABRA's common shares with a carrying value of $Nil on the Company's consolidated balance sheets[REF F]. During 1997, the Company sold 859,266 common shares of JABRA for cash proceeds of $276,300 and recorded a gain on sale of investment of $276,300.
May 22, 2000
GN Netcom Acquires JABRA Corporation
The purchase price for JABRA is $40 million plus earn-out payments totaling a maximum of $35 million.
EDIG 10Q filed 20010214
For the period ending June 30th, 2000 e.Digital recorded a “gain on the sale of investment” of $30,124.
To the Q&A Thread:
I apologize in advance for this message and will refrain from additional comments on this topic henceforth.
"But I am now resolved, again, to not raising my blood pressure nor, more importantly WASTEING MY TIME on those with closed minds..."
Sir, I respectfully argue that it is you, by demanding the voice of others be muted, who has a closed mind.
If my messages are "not honest" why hasn't anyone come forward with evidence to refute the alleged lies?
My assertions are consistently refuted with ad hominem attacks, of which never address the alleged lies.
There exists sufficient reason to believe e.Digital management may have fraudulently misappropriated an asset of the corporation by disregarding standard business practice and with disregard for their fiduciary responsibility owed to the corporation and the shareholders of the corporation.
EDIT: I have also articulated the reason for my concern. Unless you can equally articulate why my concerns are unfounded, I advise you to immediately cease from alluding to my comments as lies.
milplease: It appears as though the minimum bid is a function of the best bid and incremental bid of $5.
In other words the minimum bid is the best bid plus $5.
How about this interesting twist for the conpcept of a private board; like private chat, it is an entirely closed-door "board room".
Only those who have paid the price of admission can participate and view the contents.
Then again with the concept of a private board, Ihub exposes itself to additional headaches as inevitably paid members of a private board will take exception in one form or another to the manner it is administered.
For instance, if I paid $5 to join the "XYZ to da Moon!" private thread and because of a disagreement my messages were deleted, the first person I would come to voice my grievance would be you. You would then be put into the position of making the final decision of what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behavior. Which, in my understanding, is what the private board should endeavor to eliminate.
That's what love about the cult. They've been conditioned into accepting that e.Digital's business is some unsolvable enigma that would send even the greatest business minds into a fit.
To the contrary solving for e.Digital's cost is not a insurmountable task and in fact is a rather simple exercise that requires only some researching ability (or industry experience) to complete.
[(component costs) * (1 + volume discount)] + (manufacturer's margin) + (import costs) = cost per unit
Once we solve for the cost per unit and an estimate for the manufacturing start-up cost, we can calculate what e.Digital must charge per unit to break even on 1000 units.
eBay auction for Odyssey1000.
Starting bid: $1
Current bid: $227.50
Total bids: 8
Is inventory already being liquidated?
Like I mentioned before, they've captured their $100 margin on shareholders sales, generating maybe $50,000 in gross profit from the sale of 500 units, and now it's time to liquidate the rest below cost.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=3007550504&category=11024
with today's postings re the Digitalway MPIO HD100?
You can't be serious.
You wrote that piece on Macworld, didn't you?
I have seen no credible evidence to counter my forecast.
For fun, let's parse the pertinent information for the MacWorld.UK hyperbole.
DigitalWay has launched an MP3 player that's "startlingly similar" to Apple's iPod.
So startlingly similar that I imagine Apple's intellectual property attornies are already preparing a cease and desist order.
The £299.99 (inc-VAT) product is called the hd100 personal digital jukebox. It includes a digital voice recorder and an FM radio (with 12 pre sets). The hd100 also features VoiceNav speech recognition technology, so the unit can locate a track simply by saying its name.
It is non sequitur to assume that since the unit uses VoiceNav, the entire unit design must be licensed from e.Digital.
Pre-orders can be made at www.ihavetohave.it.
In fact they cannot be preordered.
http://www.ihavetohave.it/acatalog/personalmp3.html
And whatever happened to that 12 cent PPS that you foresaw coming 'very soon' some weeks back?
Ahh, yes, the e.Digital cult is well-polished in ad hominem and non sequitur arguments.
Zack, you are ignoring a basic fact... manufacturing electronics has always been a thin margin endeavor, whereas reselling of electronics does not have to be. Admittedly, high volume retailers such as BestBuy, Circuit City, etc operate on a low margin/high volume basis. However, an operation such as the Edig Store has miniscule overhead compared to the aforementioned brick and mortar vendors. A 28% margin is in no way atypical for etailers.
Thank you for the response however the overhead of e.Digital's website is only one component of their cost function.
(Cost of goods sold) - (Reveune generated) = (Gross Profit/Loss) - (Operating Costs) / (Revenue generated) = Operating Margin
EDIT: Any costs associated to maintaining the website is accounted for as a operating expense and not factored into the cost of goods sold.
They have nothing to do with edig, and that's history.
"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future conquers the past." -Orwell
Every analytical model I have ever used is dependent in one way or another on historical data.
Do you always try and twist the facts.
It is you sir who perverts the facts.
One day you are emphasizing the cost benefit of marginal increases in production and the next day you are highlighting gross margin growth irrespective of increases in top line revenue growth.
Again, a 15% gross margin on 24 million USD in sales.
You are on record predicting gross margins or greater of 28% to e.Digital from etailing the Odyssey1000 unit.
I gave you an opportunity to adjust your forecast in light of DigitalWay's margins.
I will extend this opportunity to you again.
You answer my question and comment.
Testy, are we Richard? To answer your question- I cannot answer that at this time but I expect to answer your question soon.
Look at those razor thin margins.
A gross profit of 15% on 24 million USD in sales.
What was your prediction for the gross margin of the Odyssey1000? Greater than $100 per unit? 28.7% or greater?
Care to strike your projection from the record?
Korean Won per U.S. Dollar
http://finance.yahoo.com/m5?a=1000000&s=KRW&t=USD
Does anyone have the link about how many "mp3" players Digitalway sells each year?
Aggregate annual turnover? No, but here is a link to DigitalWay's financial statements.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=667804
&pref=G>
&pref=G>
richardosborne
I never said that. You have mistaken my words with the words of others.
I would appreciate it if you did not "group" my opinion with the opinion of others, I certainly do not do the same with you.
So you are still at "NONE", not "ONE".
I understand.
Here is a wish that good tidings bestow themselves upon you and your loved ones.