Replies to post #239034 on Spongetech Delivery Systems, Inc. (fka SPNGQ)

[awesomebummer]

He/she "was completely wrong?"


You Say: "Obviously the SEC found enough evidence from their formal investigation to give several examples of wrongdoing directly related to SPNG management in their letter that called for the halt in trading of SPNG."

Wrong. The SEC said "...because questions have arisen regarding the accuracy of assertions in press releases to investors and in periodic reports filed with the Commission..."

NOT "evidence." There were "questions."

The poster, whom you corrected as "completely wrong," wrote: "the SEC halted to look into the company and see if it was lying, or a scam, correct?" That sounds pretty close.

[sponge_digger]

I am afraid this is being confused and exagerated so I will correct it as best I can

and your welcome

The investigation:
Sept 18, 2009 The investigation was put in place in regards to possible securities laws violations by the Company and/or other persons .

The suspension:
SEC does not possess the power to "halt" trading. They can and did issue a suspension. They did not give "several" examples of wrong doing so please read the following and keep it real dude!

trading was temporarily suspended because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning among other things, the amount of sales and customer orders received by the Company, investment agreements entered into by the Company and the Company’s revenues as reported in its financial statements




Reponse to:
"the SEC halted to look into the company and see if it was lying, or a scam, correct?"

I'm afraid you are completely wrong here. SEC doesn't halt trading just to "see if it was lying" etc. That is what the initial investigation was for, hence the formal "SEC investigation" prior to the halt in trading.

Obviously the SEC found enough evidence from their formal investigation to give several examples of wrongdoing directly related to SPNG management in their letter that called for the halt in trading of SPNG.

What part of the formal investigation and then the subsequent halt don't you understand? And did you read anything from the SEC that referred to NSS? I think not...

[Mingy]

Directly from SEC website. Clearly I am right. Now, given we are opening Monday, I think its safe to assume the SEC has no more questions about the accuracy or any other issues regarding the company. Thus, the numbers are legit, and the only reasonable explanation for a company that does 25M a month in sales, with a profit of 5M a month, to be trading a market cap of 50M, is HUGE NAKED SHORT POSTION.

FAIR VALUE OF SPONGTECH IS $2.4.
25M A MONTH IN SALES
20 PERCENT PROFIT MARGIN
20 PE
AND 500M SHARES OUTSTANDING
EQUALS $2.4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! booyaaaaa

"The Commission temporarily suspended trading in the securities of SpongeTech because of questions that have been raised about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated information concerning, among other things, the amount of sales and customer orders received by SpongeTech, investment agreements entered into by SpongeTech, and SpongeTech's revenues as reported in its financial statements."
http://www.sec.gov/news/digest/2009/dig100509.htm