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.
Why look at SLNN's report from 2 quarters ago when we already have the last report for almost 2 months.
The most recent numbers are from December 2014. Not September.
This is assuming all preferred shares are converted at $0.02. The best way to look at it as of now is the one referred to in the 8K:
I'm not wrong. This would mean that you are referring to the authorized shares, not the shares issued which wouldn't matter in term of percentage of ownership.
The only truth is that he could own 42% of the outstanding shares within a 65 days notice.
please provide proof otherwise.
As confirmed by this 8k: http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10366615-838-9958&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=845375&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1502966
This is simply not true. This 8K clearly states 42.95% please provide proof that this is not true.
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10366615-838-9958&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=845375&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1502966
First of, the NY Post never said anything about Weiner’s percentage of ownership in DIGP, but they don’t have to since this 8K is very clear. We are talking about 42.95% after conversion.
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10366615-838-9958&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=845375&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1502966
Considering several of his associates also owns shares in the company, it is safe to assume that he has complete control over the company.
If you don’t trust the NY Post, Bloomberg also made an extensive piece on Weiner. Digipath is mentioned 6 times.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-18/legal-pot-sets-off-penny-stock-frenzy
But to come back the NY Post’s credibility in the matter, Weiner and his lawyer didn’t deny anything. Not even the text messages they got. So if the texts are truthful it gives a lot of credibility to the NY Post’s source about the SEC investigation.
Nope they both have work emails from TNMNews. they work for DIGP as confirmed by this media kit: http://thenationalmarijuananews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/ad-packet12815_TDSMALLER.pdf
Incorrect? Yet SLNN hits new lows every other week. Like today.
The point is that Saleen can't even own their display car for "GTX". They have to borrow it. There is no better word for it.
Of course, no one is deniying that you can send your car to Saleen and it wont show for your inventory, but that's generally not the cars for the display cars used in car shows and for promotional materials!
That and also 2 P85? Discontinued for 5 months!
I like Saleen’s slogan:
Saleen – Power in the hands of a few… penny-stock scammers
but they should make one for the stock too:
SLNN – A new all-time low every other week
Any proof of that?
Again, what is more likely?
1: Saleen managed to borrow 2 different Tesla Model S P85 which has been out of production for the last 5 months.
Or
2: Saleen managed to borrow someone’s Model S P85 to make the 416 display car, but when Tesla discontinued the P85 with its 416 hp, Saleen was stuck with rebranding everything, so they changed the P85 borrowed for the 416 display, which had become useless, and made it into the “GTX”.
Again, yes that is the most likely explanation IMO. I'll be glad to be proven otherwise.
lol that's 4 months old. It has been renamed GTX since then.
I'm saying that the most likely explanation is that the black GTX is made from the same Tesla Model S p85 used to make the red "416".
The back-end and the front fascia had minor changes. These changes happened regardless of wether they are different cars are not. Therefore it doesn't necessarily mean that the base Tesla Model S isn't the same for both version.
What does make the most sense?
1: Saleen managed to borrow 2 different Tesla Model S P85 which has been out of production for the last 5 months.
Or
2: Saleen managed to borrow someone’s Model S P85 to make the 416 display car, but when Tesla discontinued the P85 with its 416 hp, Saleen was stuck with rebranding everything, so they changed the P85 borrowed for the 416 display, which had become useless, and made it into the “GTX”.
So if I understand correctly, 2 managers of Digipath's TNMNews were convicted in an illegal marketing scheme?
The question is not as to what they did to the car, but if the red 416 was built on the same Model S P85 as to the black GTX.
All evidences points toward the fact that they are the same car since Tesla stopped production back in October 2014.
This is being said every week and then we hit another all time low every week.
SLNN is down 47% YTD and 93% over the last 12 months.
SLNN was a bad investment and remains a bad investment.
Please provide proof of this statement.
Saleen doesn't show any Model S in their inventory. Only a S7 and some parts. One thing is undeniable is that Saleen doesn't own any Saleen Tesla.
No one as seen a recent picture of the red Saleen "416" and somehow now Saleen changes the name of the model and a similar car appears with another color.
The original red display car was made from a P85 borrowed by Saleen as proved by lack of inventory disclosure.
Tesla stopped producing P85 Model S' back in October last year.
Therefore the most likely explanation is that Saleen used the same P85 when they changed their branding from 416 to ST to GTX.
The only other explanation would be that Saleen BORROWED another Model S P85 since Tesla doesn't produce them anymore.
I'd welcome proof confirming otherwise.
It's the same P85 that was in red at Pebble Beach. Tesla didn't make any P85 since October.
I'm not saying that the $3.6 million or the lack of debt are not true. I'm saying their PR releases are purely to promote their stock, not their business. Always be worried of a company that tries to sell itself more than its product.
David Weiner and his associates' involvement with DIGP has been well documented through DIGP's filings over the years, but more recently through this 8K - 12/18/14
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?FilingID=10366615-838-9958&type=sect&TabIndex=2&companyid=845375&ppu=%252fdefault.aspx%253fcik%253d1502966
They entered the last quarter with $900k of deposit backlog, but then proceeded to only sell $500k worth of cars and parts in the next 3 months while ending the quarter with $1.1m in deposit backlog.
Clearly there's a problem here. They don't manage the money they are asking for as deposit to produce the cars they are promising.
They need to focus their resources toward building cars they have already accepted deposits for, before spending it trying to acquire more demand going to shows and such.
The volume, revenue, admin costs have nothing to do with this.
Someone who owns a share of SLNN today owns 0.0000006% of the company. In 2 years, someone who owns a share of SLNN will own 0.0000003%. Half as much.
This is regardless of how well Saleen would be doing.
Absolutely nothing I said is incorrect.
I never said they are not producing cars. I said they have a backlog of $1.1 million that they somehow can't deliver on. This is a fact confirmed in their last 10Q.
There's no problem with an healthy backlog, but when your backlog of deposits is worth more than one quarter worth of full revenue, you have a problem.
50% share dilution per year is unacceptable for any company.
Focusing on the number (150 million) is useless. Saleen has only 167 million shares outstanding. Doubling that number on the course of only 2 years is extremely harmful.
Post from SLNN's board that I think is relevant to DIGP to since Weiner and Knoll are major shareholders here too:
Please quote where someone said that Saleen sponsored the Formula E event?
Here is what was said.
It wasn't true, now it's useless?
What more proof do we need?
Here's a picture of Steve Saleen at the Tesla LA Club event at the Formula E weekend with the caption: "How kick @$$ is our Saleen sponsor?" - https://imgur.com/rZdoaBm
There's no ambiguity here. Saleen sponsored the Tesla LA Club event as initially stated. Period.
Completely False huh?
I said they paid Tesla LA club, not Formula E.
Saleen did pay Tesla LA club. Here's the proof from the horse's mouth: https://imgur.com/rZdoaBm
https://www.facebook.com/Teslaclubla
Saleen paid them. They sponsored the event.
There are no "additional factors".
Saleen receives a certain amount of money for their cars and parts they sell in a certain period of time.
For the last reported quarter, this amount was $536,895.
Then they calculate the cost of these cars and parts sold during the same period by adding material cost, parts cost and labor cost.
For the last reported quarter, this amount was $552,788.
$536,895 < $552,788
Saleen had a negative gross profit last quarter, therefore they lost money on every car and part sold on average.