trader: "Sid mentions that the joint venture is a scam because he cant find it in the search engines. Not on the web, it must be a scam?"
That is not what I said. Not being on the web is what first made me suspicious that Antaeus did not exist. But what PROVES that it does not exist is that MTEY, the public company that is supposedly half owner of Antaeus, states clearly in its material that Antaeus is nothing more than an idea for a company, and that its real existence will depend on government funding for research on its idea for bridge monitoring. Sometime, way in the future, if it turns out that its technology does work, then MTEY and its private joint venture partner will have to raise some financing and try to go into business selling this system. If they get any customers, then maybe they will be in a position to buy some gas monitors.
No, a company doesn't have to report on minor subsidiaries, but, according to DCHT, Antaeus is about to give it millions of dollars of business. For Antaeus to do that, it must have millions, or at least the prospect of getting them.
To have a subsidiary capable throwing around such sums would be something memorable for MTEY, whose cash balance at December 31 was a glorious $20. It would be highly significant. It absolutely would show up in MTEY's financial documents, both in the verbiage and in the numbers.
I am certainly open to other interpretations, but I don't see how a reasonable person looking at MTEY's material can conclude that Antaeus still remains little more than an idea, not a company capable of giving out huge amounts of business.
People may object to calling DCHT's press release about its supposedly big Antaeus orders "fraud", but is there a better name for it?
Interestingly, I note that so far today Steve Oshinsky, the one person here who knows the most about the matter, has not tried to defend the company. I suspect that is because the press release is indefensible. |
