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.
pup,
I'm pretty sure we're on the same track. I was responding to your post partly for that reason and partly to point out that any financial info about SPNG that Walmart might have secured would have passed through the filter of D&B.
To reiterate:
If, as he says, the sponges were ordered 9-12 months ago, any financial information about SPNG that Walmart possessed would have pre-dated EVERYTHING SEC related and been based on the 2/28/09 filing.
So for him to say "then you must agree that their financials are in order as far as walmart is concerned" does not follow as a logical conclusion.
"Were" might be the proper tense.
But first we must accept the assumption that the order was placed directly with Walmart. If he's right about the 9-12 months (and I believe that he might be.....there's a first time for everything), that would put order placement back in the March-June range. This would clearly pre-date the Dicon acquisition. And there would not have been a need to place the order through Dicon given that SPNG's financial position wasn't questioned at that time. This could also fit in with the statement from the Walmart spokesperson made on 2/10/10 that "while SpongeTech has been a vendor in the past, there is currently no new national order for its SpongeBob product" if we assume that the current SPNG order was fulfilled prior to the statement. And given that the initial sighting of a Spongebob sponge in a Walmart was reported here on 2/2, it's probably safe to assume that all the product was in Walmart's hands for distribution by then. If the Walmart spokesman asked the Walmart purchasing department if there were any open orders from Spongetech on 2/10 the answer could very well have been "no".
Lots of guessing on a slow rainy day in NY.
As you know, Walmart doesn't require a supplier to provide them financial statements directly.
3/12,
cparjscpamanufacturingexecutive4housesknowseverythingaboutmoneyandretail said:
"the orders from walmart to spng were committed to at least 9 months ago, maybe as long as 12."
3/14,
cparjscpamanufacturingexecutive4housesknowseverythingaboutmoneyandretail said:
"then you must agree that their financials are in order as far as walmart is concerned"
IF Walmart placed the order directly and the 3/12 statement is correct, that would in no way support the statement of 3/14.
"the quesiton doesnt make sense*** as walmar is not extending credit to spng, it is the other way arojnd."
Of course the question makes sense. Walmart needs to know that its suppliers, which might include Spongetech, can be relied upon.
It is called a Supplier Evaluation Report.
It's purpose is to allow a customer (Walmart) to determine whether a supplier (Spongetech) has the financial stability, as gauged by the customer using the report as a tool, to provide a reliable supply of goods. If you need further proof, Walmart's requirement for potential suppliers to provide the report can be seen here:
http://walmartstores.com/Suppliers/258.aspx
Take specific note of the following:
"Please have your D&B information up to date before submitting your application (a risk rating of 7,8 or 9 will not be considered)"
That is the purpose for my question. If the manufacturer that employs you either doesn't use D&B's Supplier Evaluation Report or doesn't provide access to such reports to your position I understand that. And have no interest in paying for the requested information or any expectation that you would. Your description of your position and discussion of D&B issues led me to believe that you might already have access to it.....or at least be aware of its desirability and existence.
***The thing that doesn't make sense is that you include cpa in your screen name, profess to be "an executive at a manufacturing company" with "a house in bentonville arkansas as well as two in new york and one in ohio", "know all about money and retailing" and still find the question hard to grasp.
rjscpa,
The question that I am asking calls for a single digit response (1-9). Nothing more is needed.
You should not need any information above and beyond that which has already been provided, but in the event that you require inspiration:
1. There is a question in some people's minds as to whether Spongetech would be extended credit by Walmart.
2. Per the Walmart website's Submission Process page "In order to evaluate a firm's financial standing, a Supplier Evaluation Report (SER) is required." An SER is a D&B generated report.
3. Per the D&B website, the SER includes a Risk Summary: "A rating of a supplier's financial strength based on financial, public record, and operational information. The risk rating is on a scale of 1-9 with a 1 being the lowest and 9 being the highest."
It is that single digit number that I seek. Nothing more. Again, your lengthy explanations have been entertaining but non-responsive. I'm sure that the simple bit of information that I'm asking for is well within your expertise and readily available to you. I'm more than happy to wait until your return to the office.
not quite me,
Again, I have but one question:
What is Spongetech's most recent risk rating?
This is the risk rating that would appear in Spongetech's D&B Supplier Evaluation Report to which I'm sure you have access.
I believe that you have access to the answer based on your nickname and your posts:
"just fyi, i
a. am an executive at a manufacturing company that sells so much more to wal mart than you can imagine that you couldnt possibly understand"
"but have you looked at their D & B report? i have. their credit is fine."
"ok, their credit rating is average, 3/5. however their paydex is significantly higher than the rest of their industry."
"their credit score is actually midpoint between a 3 and 4, with 5 being the highest."
Again, I have but one question:
What is Spongetech's most recent risk rating?
Don't care about anything else....and it will definitely wait until you get back to the office.
TIA
rjscpa,
"And if msg claims the money was for advertising and other services provided, and they did not check the credit rating of spng (which, i posted last month, according to D & D is OK),"
Are you referring to D & B?
Because, while I was unable to find your post, the following post...addressed to me.... was apparently made by someone else :o) :
ok, their credit rating is average, 3/5. however their paydex is significantly higher than the rest of their industry. i suppost you want a definition. ok, they pay 33% faster than anyone else in their catagory, recently no more than 8 days past due. this position is UNCHANGED for the last 3 months. their credit score is actually midpoint between a 3 and 4, with 5 being the highest. there is only one ucc filing active. they have a clear history. DICON is listed as a fully owned subsidiary. sorry, i do not have anyones dna test or latest std diagnosis. ifyou want more info, i suggest you subscribe to d & b. they know a lot about you too."
Anyway, that "someone else" stuff is none of my business. But since you know something about the D&B issue maybe you can address the following.
Per the Walmart website Submission Process page: http://walmartstores.com/Suppliers/258.aspx
"Please have your D&B information up to date before submitting your application (a risk rating of 7,8 or 9 will not be considered)".
I have but one question:
What is Spongetech's most recent risk rating?
If you personally don't know, perhaps you know someone who does.
TIA
Patently absurd.
"MSG's Stuart Heifetz mischaracterized the circumstances behind the issuance of the $360,000 check at issue and conveniently neglected to attach a copy of the ORIGINAL $360,000 check referred to in his affidavit!!!"
1. SM gives Check#1145 to SH at office.
2. SH follows SM to garage because check has typo (SM says the typo is his omission of the word "thousand" on the check line).
3. SM says he'll replace check later at office.
4. SH goes to office and picks up replacement check#1148.
Now, in order to attach a copy of the ORIGINAL $360,000 check referred to in his affidavit, we would have to believe that SM allowed SH to walk out of his office with not just one, but two signed $360,000 checks. It's not very reasonable to expect the plaintiffs to attach a copy of a check that's not in their possession to their complaint, is it?
If that passes your sniff test, try this:
Why didn't SM and the SPNG attorney attach a copy of the original check themselves in their cross action? Do you believe that they would've relied on the plaintiff's to provide that document as evidence?
Am I missing something?
Sent on 1/13/10:
To: sales@spongetechs.com
subject: pre-orders
When are pre-orders charged to my credit card, when ordered or when shipped?
Thank you.
No response to date. Has anyone "pre-ordered" product more than a few weeks ago, been charged for it and not yet received it?
XXXXXXXXXXX
I just noticed on the website that there is a difference in the way certain products are presented. For some, one clicks an icon saying "Add to Cart" and others require clicking on the words "Order Now".
The confusion is highlighted in Klee's post:
"What's even more interesting is that you CAN'T buy SpongeBob or Dora on their website, you can only put it in your "wish list.""
Which is clearly not the correct interpretation.
After further clicking, it turns out that one cannot draw any conclusions from the different notations. In fact, you can "Add to Cart" Pink Panther, yet the page indicates "Availability: PRE-Order now will ship in Approximately- 75 days." But you can "Order Now" Dora and the page shows "Availability: Usually Ships in 3 to 5 Business Days".
"BTW - i believe the updated 13D from Pike is due today. dont know why they havent filed it already as every other time they added the 13D came shortly after the Form 4"
Nice catch CYRX....I was dozing off.
Actually, while the Form 4 is due on the second day, the due date for a 13D/A is only defined as "promptly":
Rule 13d-2 -- Filing of Amendments to Schedules 13D or 13G
If any material change occurs in the facts set forth in the Schedule 13D required by Rule13d-1(a), including, but not limited to, any material increase or decrease in the percentage of the class beneficially owned, the person or persons who were required to file the statement shall promptly file or cause to be filed with the Commission an amendment disclosing that change. An acquisition or disposition of beneficial ownership of securities in an amount equal to one percent or more of the class of securities shall be deemed "material" for purposes of this section; acquisitions or dispositions of less than those amounts may be material, depending upon the facts and circumstances.
My down and dirty total for his recent Form 4 acquisitions is around 6.6 million. Which is less than "an amount equal to one percent or more of the class of securities" [722, right? :o)], so no filing is due.
Thanks for that.
I kicked it back from the default 50 to 30 a while back. Clearing it is easy and it's the first thing I do at the sign of any slowing.
Thanks,
FWIW, to clear this "condition" I ran:
1. "Empty cache" on Safari and
2. "Clear history for this site" on Firefox.
I'm sure I should already know this, but why are certain posters names in the "Posted by" column printed in lavender?
"The civil charges outlined by the SEC are also violations of criminal law."
It IS complicated. I guess that belongs on the list of a million things that I didn't know.
Are all the civil charges outlined by the SEC also violations of criminal law? Or just some of them? Because I thought that they were entirely separate issues. The quote above indicates that proof of the allegations in the Wells notice would also prove violations of criminal law.
Is that correct?
r: "how can you, in good conscience, continuously imply criminal acts by the spng management and officers?"
S: "Because that's exactly what the SEC has done and continues to do?"
r: "you are no different. read yesterdays post. there is an investigation but not one single charge filed. show me where it says they use the word criminal. they specifically use Civil, not criminal."
S: "The SEC does not have criminal jurisdiction, only civil. You will be hearing from the DOJ about those criminal charges soon enough.
This has been explained here maybe 500 times since the suspension."
Steve???
My head hurts.
biglug,
"SPNG shares are presently rated OUTPERFORM."
This is how Reuters describes their own report (bolds are mine):
"This report was generated using a proprietary quantitative model that leverages widely accepted statistical methods and financial concepts to rank and rate a universe of more than 4700 US companies and US-listed ADRs with a market capitalization greater than $50mm based on a series of financial attributes. These ratings are not intended as an indication of how an individual's investment will perform. As used in this report, "Outperform" designates the companies that rank in the top 30% of companies covered by Reuters, "Neutral" designates the middle 40%, and the bottom 30% are designated "Underperform". All ratings are relative to the universe of companies covered by Reuters and not to any specific benchmark."
The Reuters rating, as stated, is based on their own equation that includes select financial data....there is no adjustment made for either the litany of subjective burdens regularly listed here or the fact that the data is ancient. The report shows no quarterly financial data, so it's probably safe to assume that they use the most recent annual data shown......from 5/31/08.
Finally, if the above does not deter you from relying on the report for ANYTHING......let alone their rating......consider the fact that they show the company having a $29,000,000 market cap (presumably .04 x 722,000,000), placing it outside their own rating parameters.
The OTC Markets (pink sheets) is showing more integrity than Reuters by doing this:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/pink/quote/quote.jsp?symbol=spng#getFilings
"Can you explain to me what I am spinning?"
BBR,
CL can explain what he means, but I'm writing to tell you that saying "Looks like Moscowitz is having to raise money by selling his Vanity Events holdings" shows that you are misreading the form.
There's a "G" in the transaction code column of the form indicating that the 500,000 shares that he disposed of were given away as a gift. If he needs to raise money, that may not be the best way to do it. Unless he's "giving" them to someone who is "giving" him something in return, but that would be pure speculation.
Christy,
I know it's futile, but I'll keep trying. I was hoping that my request would help me understand your posts ("I KNOW that I could learn a lot from you......if I could only keep the facts separate from the assumptions based on experience."), but it didn't work.
"D&D had to observe inventory, whether he actually did it or hired another CPA".
He also "had to" obey the rules that he violated that resulted in his revocation. He didn't and he's gone. By your logic all the filings are done...because the company "had to" file them.
"Not only are the depositions fact, the SEC has all the related audit workpapers. Reilly has them too."
Again an assumption, this time literally stated to be fact. You do know what a fact*** is, right?
"D&D knew in advance. He didn't try to fight it at the end."
"And he knew it well in advance, at least 60 days. Maybe 90."
You almost got this one right.....not in the sense that it is true, because you just plain don't know that it is true. But in the sense that you eventually got around to explaining why you THINK that it's true:
"The US agencies will always give you one last chance to make a statement or submitt evidence, before the final verdict. The "Wells" is a perfect exaqmple of this. The IRS has the same procedure, except it's a 2 part process. State CPA socities the same thing. Its SOP."
I'll say it again in a different way. Speaking just for myself, I would get a lot more out of your posts if you used language that differentiated between what you know to be true and what you believe we can logically assume based on your experience. "SOP" and "fact" do not have the same meaning. And for the record, as sweet as it sounds, calling me Dear doesn't fix this problem.
***fact |fakt|......noun
a thing that is indisputably the case
Christy,
The declarative sentence continues to come between us.
"D&D had to observe inventory at the Dicon plants on May 31st." (Do you think the staff [:o)] of Drakeford had to observe the taking of inventory in China in the prior year in accordance with GAAS?)
"The SEC knows this to be a fact, based on depositions with D&D, R&H and review of PCAOB evidence files."
These are reasonable conclusions in ordinary circumstances, but you cannot know them to be facts. Can you?
But I'd rather you help me with:
"Mosky knew in May about D&D." and "Why do the audit work, if he knew about the PCAOB issues".
Are you saying that the Drakeford accountant new in advance of the order that he would be revoked? Is that typical? Otherwise, no one has an obligation to file on mere "issues", regardless of their potential impact. Right?
"He lied about this information 8 weeks later (50 days late), and corrected himself on Sept 16th (105 days Late). This admission of his lie, is based on advice from the much heralded SEC attorney Siegal IMO."
For this to be true, I believe it would mean that Siegel provided that advice 6 weeks before his first "notice of appearance" in the class action. Is it reasonable to think that he was on board prior to the trading suspension?
I KNOW that I could learn a lot from you......if I could only keep the facts separate from the assumptions based on experience.
I'm afraid that I can't continue this.
The idea that you ascribe the failure of management to function within the same set of rules that every other growing company must comply with to.....
"massive growth"...."it's in the filings"!!!,
flinging the spaghetti of "meeting with naz re: uplist" and NITE at the wall in the process represents an abyss that I'm not willing to try to cross.
I bid you Good Luck and adieu.
"so the expectation with a rapidly growing co. is that mgmt should by divine osmosis know that drakeford has issues and that those issues originate with another co. entirely unrelated to spongetech?
Divine osmosis. Exactly. CFO's, unfamiliar with the intricacies of world wide web access, use it all the time.
So you were asking me a question the answer to which you already knew? REALLY?
I don't appreciate being used that way. And don't usually play the "who has the best opinion" game. I prefer to discuss the facts. But......
"oh and isn't *THAT* part of the problem
mgmt *faced*?"
Did Drakeford impose their services on SPNG? Or did SPNG employ Drakeford for a number of years knowing that they had a malleable CPA? Given the history of the parties, the issue of which of the two was responsible for shareholders finding out about Drakeford's revocation 3 months after its actual occurence is a toss-up.
The order was issued and made public on 6/16. Do you think maybe the PCAOB sent Drakeford a copy? If I was responsible for the accounting function of a publicly held company and my auditor had their registration revoked smack dab in the middle of the year end audit....some 45 days after the close of the fiscal year.....how long do you think it would take me to find out about it? On July 16th the company filed that Drakeford resigned due to "dissolution of the firm". So, at that point, they were already a month behind the 8-ball. It apparently took another 2 months for the company to realize that it wasn't dissolution but revocation that caused Drakeford's "resignation". Or maybe they realized it sooner, but took 2 months to tell their shareholders about it.
The PCAOB regulates accounting firms, not the firms that they audit. Spongetch has the obligation to confirm that their annual audit is being performed by an accredited accounting firm in the same way that you have the obligation to assure that the Doctor that you take your kids to is licensed to practice medicine. If you rely on the AMA to drop you a note should your family Doctor lose his license who do you blame for any problems that arise from that? The AMA?
It would be nice if the PCAOB collected the names of all the clients that were audited in the prior couple of years by the audit firms whose registrations they revoked and dropped them all a little note. Just as it would be nice if the AMA kept track of Dr.'s patients for similar purposes. They don't. I suppose we could whine about that and maybe some day it will happen.
Until then, it would be nicer if the CFO's of public companies, whose responsibility it is to assure that their company's year-end audit is performed on a timely basis by a qualified firm, just did their jobs. The relationship between a CFO and a one-man accounting firm should be such that the CFO can monitor the status of that firm without that responsibility presenting an overwhelming burden. Furthermore, a CFO that doesn't know that the revocation of the company accounting firm's registration will result in a requirement to re-audit any previously material audited by that firm prior to its inclusion in any subsequent filings should be doing something else for a living.
"oh and isn't *THAT* part of the problem
mgmt *faced*?"
In fact, it's a part of the problem that management created. Don't you ever get tired of trying to find someone else to blame?
"when was drakeford informed their registration was revoked?"
I don't know and neither does the public. The PCAOB order revoking their registration is dated 6/16/09.
http://pcaobus.org/Enforcement/Decisions/Documents/06-16-DellaDonna.pdf
"when did drakeford inform spongetech mgmt that that happened?"
I don't know and neither does the public. The first time that Spongetech reported "that Drakeford’s decision to resign was due to the revocation of Drakeford’s registration by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board" was in an 8-K filed on 9/16/09.
http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420409048616/v160571_8ka.htm
"REALLY?"
Yes, REALLY.
Finding THE WRONG RELEASE quickly isn't something that I would be pointing out in ALL CAPS and bold letters. I'll bet I could find the wrong release in a whole lot less than 2 minutes.
If your post-coffee post will be in response to "FWIW, there was noticeable change in trading patterns in that 5 day period", there's no need. My intent was to indicate that there was NO noticeable change. Apologies if I got you excited.
Date Open High Low Close Volume
4/20/09 0.019 0.0191 0.0151 0.018 63,761,057
4/17/09 0.0184 0.0185 0.0154 0.0185 56,250,220
4/16/09 0.0185 0.0198 0.0171 0.018 58,176,329
4/15/09 0.0225 0.0226 0.0182 0.0193 42,885,984
reg,
At first I thought that had to be a mistake.
Then I found it in a couple other places:
http://www2.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=SPIHOU.story&STORY=/www/story/04-15-2009/0005006356&EDATE=WED+Apr+15+2009,+09:15+AM
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-197789093.html
(Had to be one of the hardest SPNG PR's to find EVER)
Then I looked at the 10Q in question.
Sure enough, it looks like somebody was trying to pull the oldest gag in the world. It's the old "Whoops, I know I said Net Income, but I really meant Pre-tax" gag.
You're being too kind in calling it false and misleading.
And I'm sure that you remember that on the day of that PR, instead of filing the 10Q that was due on that day, the filed an NT-10Q.......which included the same "mistake":
"For the three and nine months ended February 28, 2009, the Company anticipates that it will recognize a net income of approximately $2.3 million and $6.3 million , respectively, as compared to net income for the three and nine months ended February 29, 2008 of $188,842 and $197,150." The 10Q filing was made 5 days later.
FWIW, there was noticeable change in trading patterns in that 5 day period. However, the delay did offer the opportunity to do this: "On April 16, 2009, RM Enterprises cancelled 526,585,544 common shares to reduce the common shares issued and outstanding from 1,249,451,605 to 722,866,061 common shares. These common shares were put back into the treasury."
OK, so maybe it wasn't a stroke of genius :o)
That said, I can't believe how I seem to have absolutely no trouble negotiating the beer section at the A&P without bumping into a stand full of chips.
I can't believe that it's come to this........we need a filing bad, real bad.
oa,
"LOL. Number one in Bar Soaps on Amazon huh? As if anyone shops for their soap on Amazon. "
You're right......it's a silly statistic to cite.
BUT it might be a valuable piece of accidental research, telling retailers how effective a Spongebob display can be when placed adjacent to the soap section or the Baby Care section.
Steve,
If the app doesn't work you can always try this:
http://www.americasticketcompany.com/
Libra,
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=61045509
Thanks for that. I've read both it and all the SPNG filings reporting the same thing before.......filings that require documents that appear to remain unfiled at this date.
For starters, I don't rely on Business Week for any of my financial research....I find it seriously lacking. By way of example I suggest you enter SPNG, SPNG.PK or Spongetech in the search box on the link you provided and see what you get.
After that you can try clicking on the http://www.dicontechnologies.com/
link in the Company Overview section. Start by looking at the Company History page for a mention of Spongetech. Then click on the Products page and look for Spongetech (hint: You'll have to slide over to the "other" category and you'll have to recognize the name RSI Enterprises).
I'm not saying that a deal hasn't been done, but if stating "I'm not 100% clear on the status of the Dicon/SPNG relationship" paints me as ignorant in some people's eyes, I can live with that at this point.
Patent application notes.
The application that has been the topic of conversation was filed on 5/11/09 and published on 1/14/10:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=boDLAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Item (63) under Related U.S. Application Data it says:
"Continuation of application No. 10/547,408, filed on Aug. 30, 2005, now abandoned etc............"
That application was published 0n 10/19/06:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=2LmZAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Looking at the source patent we see that there was only one assignee:
H.H. Brown Shoe d/b/a Dicon.
While I haven't looked at any technical changes in the "new" application at all, one change DOES stick out. Reckitt Benckiser Inc. was added as an assignee. Which seems to support the idea that there was a "new" plan to incorporate RB product in a Dicon applicator.
Disclaimer: I'm not 100% clear on the status of the Dicon/SPNG relationship. I don't know how or if SPNG might benefit from the above.
Karm,
Further to the code of ethics issue:
SEC rules (Item 406 of Regulation S-K) require that an issuer either have a code of ethics or, if not, provide an explanation in their current reports explaining why not. SPNG's code was published as an exhibit (ex14-1) to the 10K for the year ended 8/29/07.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1201251/000114420407047069/0001144204-07-047069-index.htm
It appears to be identical to the website version with one exception. The following passage, under Conflict of Interest, has been eliminated from the code as it appears on the website:
"A “conflict of interest” occurs when the private interest of a director or executive officer interferes in any way, or appears to interfere, with the interests of the Company as a whole. Conflicts of interest also arise when a director or executive officer, or a member of his or her immediate family, receives improper personal benefits as a result of his or her position as a director or executive officer of the Company. Loans to, or guarantees of the obligations of, a director or executive officer, or a member of his or her family, may create conflicts of interest."
Karm,
No connection to a settlement....it has been part of website since at least mid-November:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_S/threadview?bn=100008&tid=20575&mid=20575
A Chairman of the Audit Committee would be a novel idea :o)
reg,
It didn't...he's already acknowledged it.
(near the end)
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=47412658
KLee,
I wouldn't call KW's words misleading:
"Both Citi Field and MSG claim the checks bounced shortly after the Securities and Exchange Commission suspended trading of the company's stock in October. The company has since been notified by the SEC that the watchdog is gearing up to file civil lawsuits against it and several executives for a myriad of securities violations, although no action has emerged."
patchman acknowledged his mistake: "I misinterpreted the statement in the article. The SEC did not speak to MSG, "Company" meant SPNG and not MSG."
re: "her implying civil lawsuit SHOULD be civil injunctive actions."
I believe that the terms are reasonably interchangeable. SEC actions of this type are typically brought in US District Court. If anything the sanctions available in a civil injunctive action are broader than the mere monetary recovery available in a civil suit. Typically they might (1)permanently enjoin each Defendant from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, (2)permanently bar each Defendant from serving as an officer or director of a public company and (3)order each Defendant to pay disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and a civil monetary penalty.
CYRX,
"BTW - I called FINRA last week and spoke w/ Jocelyn regarding FINRA's daily short list.
She explained to me that the list is activity of shares that have been sold short on a daily basis but should not be thought of as a net position.
So if 1mm shares were shorted that doesn't mean they weren't covered later in the day. either way the recent #s tell me that the shorts have been applying pressure to keep the lid on SPNG."
This suggests that you feel that patchman's explanation, attributing the "short trades" figure to the method by which regular sells are transacted by MM's, isn't correct. And that you believe that plain old short selling accounts for more than half of SPNG's trading quite frequently. Do I read that right?
BTW, I surely don't doubt that you're reporting Jocelyn's explanation accurately. In fact her explanation, in the absence of further detail, could support both interpretations.
Your opinion is appreciated as always.
"Interesting 1jk1, I did a search, I found
that there are 284,000 links to the search words "Madison Sq Garden lawsuits"
There's more than one way to skin a search. I'll bet MSG will be surprised to hear this: "What I can see is MSG has thousands of lawsuits.(over 100,000 lawsuits)".
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Madison+Sq+Garden+lawsuits%22+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
"No results found for "Madison Sq Garden lawsuits".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=lDJ&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Madison+Sq+Garden+lawsuits&btnG=Search&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
"Results 1 - 10 of about 66,000 for Madison Sq Garden lawsuits. (0.33 seconds)"
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=9wd&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=Madison+Square+Garden+lawsuit&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=
"Results 1 - 10 of about 346,000 for Madison Square Garden lawsuit. (0.45 seconds)"
"It is likewise not the Post’s fault that the SEC notified MSG that civil charges would be filed and they reported it. Personally I would be upset that the SEC was divulging non-public enforcement information to MSG without giving investors similar access to the information."
Granted that it's a small piece of your post, but the Post didn't indicate that "the SEC notified MSG that civil charges would be filed." The Post article stated that "The company has since been notified by the SEC that the watchdog is gearing up to file civil lawsuits", where the phrase "the company" clearly refers to Spongetech. The only reference that I found in the MSG filings to civil charges was from the Wells Notice that we all saw: "Staff intends to recommend that the Commission bring civil injunctive actions against them alleging violations of the federal securities laws". I found no evidence that "the SEC was divulging non-public enforcement information to MSG without giving investors similar access to the information" and suspect that conclusion was based on a misreading of the Post article. If I missed it please correct me accordingly.
Please forward my appreciation.
I have a better understanding of the terms. My purpose was not to "take anything out of it" but rather to define the report terms clearly and thoroughly enough to refute the contention that the short trade statistic actually represents trades meeting the traditional definition of "short sales".
Your efforts have gone a long way towards accomplishing that. Unfortunately I guess we must wait for FINRA to either 1)change their definitions, 2)change the report or 3)publish a comprehensive set of rules that define the parameters of the current report. I suspect we have a long wait. Hopefully, in the meantime, people will come to the realization that the short trade statistic represents something far more involved than mere short selling as we normally think of it.
ID,
Somehow dpilon appears to have posted that there was a deal between RME and MSG often enough for you to believe that there actually was a deal between RME and MSG.
There wasn't. Starting October 15th or starting any other time. RME had no obligations to pay anything and hence could not be late. 100 days or any other number of days.
I think this may be my last post for the day and just wanted to clear that up.
patch,
Thanks for the lesson.
I'm left with one gap in this issue and I hope you can help me close it. I'd like to use your recent answers to help me pose the question.
"The trades are described this way because this is simply how the market and market making works. It protects the MM’s from holding stock they do not want (holding stock limits their capital) and it protects them from taking a loss."
"Even in a liquid stock there is no guarantee that if you buy you can sell flat or for profit."
"The short volume percentage is nearly as high in NASDAQ and NYSE as in OTCBB. Specialists would trade that way as would NASDAQ MM’s."
"If you had the option of executing an order with guaranteed protection vs. unguaranteed protection which option would you take if the cost's were the same?"
The gap that I'm left with, given the fact that all of the above seems very reasonable, is an understanding of how the sales that do not fall within the statistic described as the "Aggregate reported share volume of executed short sale trades during regular trading hours" are transacted. It would seem that you have justified the handling of virtually all transactions in a manner that would result in their inclusion in the "short sale trade" category.
I suspect that it is my ignorance of market mechanics that causes this confusion and apologize for burdening you with it. If you could see your way to providing a description of the nature and method of transacting the trades that are included in "Aggregate reported share volume of all executed trades during regular trading hours" yet do not fall under the "Aggregate reported share volume of executed short sale trades during regular trading hours" definition, not only would I appreciate it, but it would go a long way towards putting the idea that short selling as we know it is a significant factor in the current pps to bed. I know it and you know it, but some people aren't going to accept it until all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. If we can clearly define all the terms in the equation known as the Daily Short Sale Volume File the issue will be unarguable.
Thanks again.