On the Raging Bull DCHT thread Steve has said that he will not discuss his personal trades in DCHT, including his 144 filing, under any circumstances.
It may well be that he is just preparing for fabulous news and has no intention of selling except on some extraordinary spike in the stock price. If I owned DCHT I would certainly wish that to be the circumstance.
But another scenario seems more plausible to me - that DCHT has, or is about to, run out of cash. The ballyhooed appearance at the Hydrogen conference this week may be its last hurrah and the last chance of a knowledgeable investor to unload.
The company has yet to refute any of my analysis of its finances (https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=7863827), and audited financial statements, promised for the first quarter, still do not exist. As I said in that post: "This puts a new light on why the audit has been delayed. Accounting firms usually know something about accounting, and I would think that they can do the same analysis that I have just done, and figure out that they are probably not going to get paid for their work. It also puts a new light on DCHT's proud claim that it doesn't owe even one red cent to the banks. Is there a bank out there that would lend DCHT money? Without substantial equity financing first, I doubt it."
Equally as important as whether or not DCHT is about to go under, information has come out that indicates that the company may have committed intentional fraud in its statement of February 17: dch-technology.com
This press release says that the mysterious Antaeus Corp., for which DCHT refuses to release an address, phone number, or contact person, is a "strategic affiliate", whatever that means, of Material Technologies, Inc., a pink sheet penny stock, symbol MTEY. In DCHT's Q&A at its website, it further states that "Antaeus is a customer" of the company. Also, Steve has posted here that Antaeus is a 50-50 joint venture with a private company called SIMS.
Well, MTEY's 10-K came out last week (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1036668/0001015402-99-000294.txt) and the word Antaeus shows up nowhere, but the joint venture with SIMS is discussed:
"Specifically, the Company has entered into a strategic alliance with Structural
Integrity Moni-toring Systems ('SIMS') of Willimantic, Connecticut. The Company
and SIMS are in the final stages of planning to obtain government funding to
develop and demonstrate a bridge monitoring system. The Company and SIMS will
each own 50% of new company to be formed and will each license its technology to
that Company. The arrangement also will require the new Com-pany to acquire
certain liabilities from each company. As this plan is in its early stages, the
Company can give no assurances that the new Company will be successful in its
financing ef-forts, nor is there any assurance that the bridge monitoring system
that will result from the amal-gamation will be successful in the field."
It is clear from the future tense of the language used ("…final stages of planning…", "…new company to be formed…", "plan is in its early stages…") and the fact that there isn't even a name mentioned for this proposed new joint venture, that at least as of December 31, 1998, the date covered by the 10-K, Antaeus Corp. did not exist.
Did it exist on February 17, the date of DCHT's press release, when DCHT announced business with Antaeus estimated at $1,000,000 per year? It looks like the answer is NO.
Why? Because even though the date covered by MTEY's 10-K is 12/31/98, companies are required to report significant developments that occur after that date but prior to filing the 10-K, in a section called "Subsequent Events". Forming Antaeus, and having it financed to the tune where it could expect to spend a million per year with just one supplier, would be HIGHLY significant to MTEY. MTEY has a history of huge losses, current liabilities well above current assets, a "going concern" qualification from its auditor, and cash in the till of $20. That is right - your three year old's piggy bank has more money than MTEY. And yet, in MTEY's 10-K submitted on March 30, 1999, there is no mention of forming Antaeus in the Subsequent Events section. So the evidence is extremely strong that Antaeus STILL does not exist in any meaningful form as a company, as of last week.
It is one thing for a company to be optimistic about its long term potential in its press releases. But if a company puts out a press release announcing a relationship with what would be a major new customer, and even projects revenues from that customer, and the customer does not exist, and THE COMPANY KNEW THAT when it put out the news release, well, I don't know, what would you call it? |
