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.
CBBD - You OnDemand (formerly China Broadband) up 25%+ on no news and possibly on this chart discussion video:
http://www.pennypayday.com/35/section.aspx/142/video-post/you-on-demand-holdings-cbbd-technical-stock-chart-video
-Andrew
Anything else?
What do you think?
Your either / or list is incomplete.
TF:
It was a question posted by one guy.
-Andrew
It should also be assumed that shorts are preparing one or more bad things to publish about CCME at the opening. Conversely, you cannot count on CCME saying anything positive at the opening or beforehand. Yeah, would be nice, however do not expect CCME to say or do anything favorable to shareholder interests. This company could care less about shareholders.
-Andrew
I like the "CCME.Chicken" comments to Mitch Nussbaum:
From: CCME.Chicken,
"Mitch:
Money talks. CCME claims to have $200MM. Where's the buyback and dividend?
Such cash on display would end the stock attack nightmare and destroy the shorts in the single most visibly attacked stock in the sector. It will also do the right thing for loyal trapped shareholders.
When will CCME sue the hitpiece fabricators and quote Rule 10b-5 against them for issuing misleading statements that affect the price of a traded security.
Stop talking and start the buying. With 10,200,000 shares short, if CCME issues positive news before the stock trades, the message to shorts will be timeless.
---CCME.Chicken"
POSTED ON: APRIL 28, 2011 2:31 AM
Source: http://www.thedeal.com/magazine/ID/039114/community/bridging-the-information-gap.php
CGS - Must Read - by Lead China Practice Attorney from Loeb and Loeb - Enforcement to protect companies from shorts
Source: http://www.thedeal.com/magazine/ID/039114/community/bridging-the-information-gap.php
BRIDGING THE INFORMATION GAP
U.S. Regulators Should Protect Chinese Public Company Investors from Attacks by Short Sellers
By Mitchell S. Nussbaum, Loeb & Loeb LLP
In recent weeks we have seen a handful of Chinese companies listed on U.S. exchanges involved in significant controversy. Many of these incidents have been triggered by the inability to file timely Annual Reports causing our exchanges to halt the trading of these companies or to delist them. However, what is troubling about these events is the common cause behind many of them - so-called "research reports" alleging fraud and overstated financial results as reported by these companies in their SEC filings.
What is little known is that some of the authors of these damaging "research reports" hold, or have been commissioned by an investor who holds, a "short" position in the subject company's stock. The potential for abuse is greater when writing about Chinese companies because there are gaps in information between what the U.S. investor typically knows about issues such as the subject industry in China, the identity of customers, suppliers and Chinese business practices, for example. These facts are difficult to verify and it is easy for unscrupulous individuals to utilize incorrect or misleading information, which can cause substantial damage to long-term investors.
These "research reports" have also initiated an unprecedented amount of class action litigation and SEC investigations against the accused Chinese companies. Most recently, large accounting firms have refused to sign off on the audits of these companies out of fear that they may face litigation or SEC investigation. Absent timely financial information, our exchanges have been forced to halt trading allowing short sellers to cover their positions at unbelievably low levels while wiping out investors. This of course has had the expected effect - a conclusion by the public markets that there is systematic fraud in China or an inability to create transparent companies. The overall effect has been a loss of market value of tens of billions to investors and an unprecedented lack of confidence in investing in Chinese companies - and huge gains for the short sellers.
While some Chinese companies may have significant issues, it is unfair to tar them all with the same brush. Many Chinese companies have vehemently defended themselves against the allegations, but others have volunteered to "go private" or leave the U.S. public markets for Hong Kong or other exchanges where they feel they are valued fairly. In the past two years the Hong Kong Stock Exchange has become the #1 worldwide exchange when ranking the number of IPOs and their dollar value conducted across all global exchanges for all companies. The Nasdaq Stock Market is no longer even in the top five globally.
Currently, there has been no enforcement by U.S. regulators to ensure the information in these "research reports" is accurate. What is needed are more modern regulatory practices to deal with these issues rather than scare these companies away.
Our regulators should police the veracity of the information disseminated to investors from each side. The authors of these reports and their underlying short sellers should be held as accountable for information they disseminate as management of these public companies. Disseminating false information that causes an investor to sell should be treated the same as causing an investor to buy on false information. To date, there has been no legal consequence or enforcement actions brought against any short sellers for disseminating false information on Chinese companies, while the reward has been substantial. There are many who believe that these short sellers will follow these companies to other markets. However, this is not the case. For example, the Hong Kong Stock Exchange does not allow short selling unless a company has exceeded a substantial size and they only allow short selling when there is an uptick in the stock price. We have no such equivalent in the United States.
Also Chinese management teams that disseminate false information or financial results need to feel the pain of the consequences of these actions to defer fraud from being perpetuated on U.S. markets - this is the challenge for our government regulators. Confidence needs to be restored or the consequences of getting it wrong will be devastating.
A growing portion of the world's future economic growth will come from China and greater Asia, and this growth needs to be sustained by finance obtained from the public markets and private equity. If we can establish confidence, they may continue to seek and maintain U.S. listings.
If we are unable to meet this challenge, they will not sit idly by. Chinese companies, as well as companies from other parts of the globe concerned about these practices, will undoubtedly find a suitable solution in Hong Kong or other public markets outside the United States and cause a paradigm shift in the center of finance across the Pacific, a shift that would have dramatic consequences for our own economy and the future growth of U.S. financial markets.
My understanding is that Loeb and Loeb represent dozens of Chinese companies. CCME is a big one but still only one of many.
-Andrew
Tom:
Bless you.
-Andrew
CCME - Short Interest is 10,320,438 as of 4/15/11.
Down 1,834 from 10,322,272 as of 3/31/11.
Source: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/shortinterests.aspx?symbol=CCME&selected=CCME
-Andrew
CCME - Short Interest is 10,320,438 as of 4/15/11.
Down 1834 from 10,322,272 as of 3/31/11.
Source: http://www.nasdaq.com/aspxcontent/shortinterests.aspx?symbol=CCME&selected=CCME
-Andrew
Thanks. These are not my points. The quality of what the folks at the CGS board write is well beyond my background.
-Andrew
CCME - re: Rick Pearson article today - "CCME is now being marked at $1 by brokers."
Rick's source?
re: http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/story/11096044/1/china-small-caps-dont-trade-on-rumors.html?cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA
Obviously this is not the price of the stock. One explanation is that brokers use this figure internally to calculate cost to shorts.
There is discussion on the CGS board. In addition, the comments on the CGS board about the sector and pricing CCME are interesting.
I'm going to repost two of them but everything written there about CCME is worth a look.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62493565
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62494435
-Andrew
@Rames and @Traderfan- your respective posts given their nature as overviews of a long period of time http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62493565 and http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62494435 should be plastered to the top of the YMB for the next few months.
-Andrew
CCME - re: Rick Pearson article today - "CCME is now being marked at $1 by brokers."
Rick's source?
Wuyi Pharma (HKEx Stock Code: 1889) - "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the first Annual General Meeting of the shareholders of Wuyi International Pharmaceutical Company Limited (the “Company’’) will be held at Nanping Room, Shangri-La Hotel, 9 Xin Quan Nan Road, Fuzhou, Fujian, the People’s Republic of China on 9 June 2011 at 3:00 p.m. for the following purposes:
1. To receive and consider the audited financial statements and the report of directors and auditors for the year ended 31 December 2010.
2. To declare the final dividend.
3. To declare the special dividend.
4. To re-elect directors and authorise the board of directors of the Company to fix their remuneration.
5. To re-elect auditors and authorise the board of directors of the Company to fix their remuneration.
6. As special business, to consider and, if thought fit, to pass the following as ordinary resolutions [etc.] See below for more...
Source: http://www.irasia.com/listco/hk/wuyipharma/announcement/a72200-ew1889ann.pdf
(Who knows what rumors may or may not be learned about CCME from attendees of the Wuyi meeting)...
-Andrew
CAGC - In case you have not seen the Bloomberg article, it hints at the concept that a hitpiece may not be in good faith and may be for quick gains. Two thoughts: 1) Glickenhaus should have gone to the next level and called it "reckless" disregard for the truth instead of the useless "negligent" disregard for the truth. Maybe he meant to. 2) The author would not be wrong to reference SEC Rule 10b-5 (manipulation of a traded security by false statement of material fact) i.e:
"It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
(a) To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(b) To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
(c) To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
in connection with the purchase or sale of any security."
Reference to this statute would-- and perhaps if this begins a backlash trend in some currents of the financial media-- should be included in such future articles on the topic of manipulating a security for profit via hitpiece in reckless disregard for the truth.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-26/wall-street-scion-lost-in-china-agritech-as-shorts-cry-scam-.html
-Andrew
blue: Thanks for posting that. I was about to do so.
-Andrew
CCME - re: Fidelity setting price at 0 -- From YMB alias Xaubugged --40 Day Rule - Reason CCME set to zero in brokerage accounts 35 minutes ago
" I spoke to Fidelity today and learned that brokers automatically reset the value of any security that hasn't traded in 40 days to zero. They have no information regarding CCME's status with Nasdaq or if and when the stock might start trading on pink sheets."
Source: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=te&bn=101061&tid=109998&mid=109998&tof=2&frt=1#109998
-Andrew
From YMB alias Xaubugged --40 Day Rule - Reason CCME set to zero in brokerage accounts 35 minutes ago
" I spoke to Fidelity today and learned that brokers automatically reset the value of any security that hasn't traded in 40 days to zero. They have no information regarding CCME's status with Nasdaq or if and when the stock might start trading on pink sheets."
Source: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=te&bn=101061&tid=109998&mid=109998&tof=2&frt=1#109998
-Andrew
Rick has also been nothing but a gentleman in discussing CCME both before and after the halt.
-Andrew
No good deed goes unpunished. Just ask the nice people who first began posting about CCME long before I caught win of it! ;)
Anyway, it's hard enough to take the time to post remarks out of interest in preserving literature of communications. I'm not exactly a book burning type.
-Andrew
"If Starr sells, he loses the right to arbitration in Hong Kong. Since Starr is currently engaged in arbitration in Hong Kong, there's no way he's selling. He doesn't have to have a director on the board in order to remain a controlling interest. All that is required in the agreement is that he not sell his shares. So far, he hasn't."
The above quote is the sum and substance of the ValueInvestorToday message:
Posted by: ValueInvestorToday
In reply to: Koufax who wrote msg# 29745 Date:4/25/2011 11:51:54 AM
Post #29747 of 29798
Which I deleted on grounds of "personal attack". I removed the interpersonally offensive portions and post here only the part that is a discussion of CCME. This is a step that can be taken sometimes to maintain intellectual discourse while adhering to the spirit of the ihub standards.
This action (whenever it may happen) does not mean any Moderator assumes the responsibility or sets a policy to take these extraordinary steps to preserve information. Posters should assume that message that violates the standards are at risk of deletion without repost of any non-violative portion.
-Andrew
(in my capacity as Assistant Moderator)
Deletion policy discussion with some details and examples
dipstick55:
Those are fair questions too. By and large there have not been a lot of deletions recently. There's also been fewer posts in light of sparse news...
As Michael pointed out, iHub made these deletions-- Not any Moderator or Assistant Moderator.
I attempted to reinstate a message to see what would happen and I was not authorized. This is further evidence that iHub at a high level deleted the post.
BTW, that also happens on Wikipedia. There's higher level Mods who are authorized to spot check and delete (mark for deletion). Since they use an article development process rather than a message, there's a grace period to develop further. (I bet they'd do the same thing on iHub if an iBox was going awry).
But since application of rules can be intriguing, let's say a Moderator had deleted them. Let's discuss some of the deletions I did not make to surmise why another Moderator may have done them.
Rule: A Moderator (Burrrrp), an Assistant Moderator (that's me, for example), (and iHub that's the folks who run this whole system) each has the capacity (and essentially the responsibility) to delete a message for any of the following reasons:
Personal attack
Off topic (double-post)
Spam - advertising, double post
Vulgarity
Double post
Author asked to remove
Violation of privacy
Threat
Now let's look at some of these messages in question and apply the rule (were we in the shoes of a Moderator):
1) Let's start with the message by me that was deleted:
"Posted by: bullmarkets
In reply to: RidiculousTrader who wrote msg# 29753 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 1:42:34 PM
Post #29754 of 29789
It might be confused with those nice fellas like Traderfan and some others.
It would also suggest that 50% of what he wrote is true i.e. T/F"
(Which replied to RT who had written as follows):
"Posted by: RidiculousTrader
In reply to: bullmarkets who wrote msg# 29752 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 1:37:22 PM
Post #29753 of 29789
What if we call Tom Franklin TF or Turd Ferguson
Discussion of deletion and CCME subject discussion parameters while halt is ongoing and news from CCME is rather sparse-- this is a message of encouragement to fellow Moderators considering deletion of otherwise tangential posts to instead allow greater latitude for discussion of analogous circumstances or overlapping conditions / sector companies / fraud circumstances / red flags to allow otherwise tangential seeming discussion to naturally develop through a series of exchanges in good faith by board regulars and only in moderation.
I similarly encourage such discussion on the CGS Board and on the Board of subject companies. The CGS board is sometimes more of a moment to moment trading board and may not be the best board for retrospective reflection of an a implied analogy or shared circumstance for CCME. Sometimes I or others will post both here and there to reach both audiences with relevant information.
In light of the halt and lack of direct information from CCME, it's not unreasonable to look at CCME by analogy to other companies to make deductions. Such may happen in a series of posts like those on AERL even if the posts do not say "CCME" within them. Accordingly while the halt persists, I encourage Moderators to allow greater latitude for subject matter here, particularly for occasional discussion of other sector companies by some who are interested (especially by good faith/ well-meaning CCME regulars who were exchanging with each other about AERL yesterday).
Discussions like that of AERL can be an analogy to CCME and in light of the similarity of past or present accusations or issues in the CGS sector is relevant to CCME, particularly given CCME's current circumstances. Moreover valuable discourse should not (in ideal circumstances) be deleted, but rather should be reposted.
Yesterday I took the time to post to the AERL board a list of the messages (by doing a search on AERL from the CCME Board) so the information would find itse way to the AERL-interested readers. I did not think the messages would be deleted.
To this end, all the AERL messages (pasted below) have been cut and pasted into a single document which I posted to the AERL board and also the CGS board. The sum and substance of those thoughts are preserved in the publicly available/ searchable record.
AERL Messages from yesterday follow:
Date:4/25/2011 3:31:23 PM
Post #29759 of 29785
AERL - I am in lightly for 1K above $10....
Posted by: RedBull77
In reply to: pedro45 who wrote msg# 29755 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 3:57:37 PM
Post #29761 of 29785
OT - AERL - I traded it a bit in the $9.50 - $11.00 range but it's been a total dud since.
Personally, I'd say fraud is always a possible concern when you combine "China" and "gaming" in the same sentence.
Posted by: pedro45
In reply to: Seawave7 who wrote msg# 29733 Date:4/25/2011 3:13:37 PM
Post #29755 of 29785
Pardon the OT post, but is anyone in AERL?
Fraud is not a concern (it's virtually impossible), they are going to open up a new VIP room in Macau, net income could hit $100M in 2012............trading at 4x earnings.
Posted by: Koufax
In reply to: RedBull77 who wrote msg# 29761 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:20:48 PM
Post #29762 of 29785
OT - AER: - Hmmm, I wonder what could be buried in the $39MM line item called "commmissions to agents"?
Posted by: rru2s
In reply to: Koufax who wrote msg# 29762 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:31:18 PM
Post #29765 of 29785
AERL: The commissions were brought up about 6 months ago as a difficult-to-verify value. The actual RCT is solid because it is audited, but AERL pays aout about 2/3 or 3/4 of the RCT reimbursement directly to their "agents" who run the VIP junkets with customers. There could be a whole lot of "arrangements" going on there which might impact the authenticity of whether AERL really retains 0.35% of the 1.35% RCT revenues. Web searches eventually lead to various message boards from gaming consultants, and it is clear that there are customary percentages over in Macau for this type of agent service. However, AERL investors have yet to see any documented evidence of formalized contract terms between AERL and its agents. Hypothetically, if the cash isn't all there, then it might easily be explained by the agent fees representing a higher percent of the take than AERL is claiming. Again, this isn't about the volume of business, since the rolling chip turnover is verified and audited. Rather, it is about what percentage of the fee that the casino pays to AERL is then passed downstream to the various junket agents who are well known for their slippery business dealings in the first place.
(end of messages)
-----------
-Andrew
AERL - These messages were on the CCME Board. A different Moderator there deleted them in the last 6 hours. I cannot restore them so I am cutting and pasting them here and in the AERL board.
-Andrew
Messages follow:
Date:4/25/2011 3:31:23 PM
Post #29759 of 29785
AERL - I am in lightly for 1K above $10....
Posted by: RedBull77
In reply to: pedro45 who wrote msg# 29755 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 3:57:37 PM
Post #29761 of 29785
OT - AERL - I traded it a bit in the $9.50 - $11.00 range but it's been a total dud since.
Personally, I'd say fraud is always a possible concern when you combine "China" and "gaming" in the same sentence.
Posted by: pedro45
In reply to: Seawave7 who wrote msg# 29733 Date:4/25/2011 3:13:37 PM
Post #29755 of 29785
Pardon the OT post, but is anyone in AERL?
Fraud is not a concern (it's virtually impossible), they are going to open up a new VIP room in Macau, net income could hit $100M in 2012............trading at 4x earnings.
Posted by: Koufax
In reply to: RedBull77 who wrote msg# 29761 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:20:48 PM
Post #29762 of 29785
OT - AER: - Hmmm, I wonder what could be buried in the $39MM line item called "commmissions to agents"?
Posted by: rru2s
In reply to: Koufax who wrote msg# 29762 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:31:18 PM
Post #29765 of 29785
AERL: The commissions were brought up about 6 months ago as a difficult-to-verify value. The actual RCT is solid because it is audited, but AERL pays aout about 2/3 or 3/4 of the RCT reimbursement directly to their "agents" who run the VIP junkets with customers. There could be a whole lot of "arrangements" going on there which might impact the authenticity of whether AERL really retains 0.35% of the 1.35% RCT revenues. Web searches eventually lead to various message boards from gaming consultants, and it is clear that there are customary percentages over in Macau for this type of agent service. However, AERL investors have yet to see any documented evidence of formalized contract terms between AERL and its agents. Hypothetically, if the cash isn't all there, then it might easily be explained by the agent fees representing a higher percent of the take than AERL is claiming. Again, this isn't about the volume of business, since the rolling chip turnover is verified and audited. Rather, it is about what percentage of the fee that the casino pays to AERL is then passed downstream to the various junket agents who are well known for their slippery business dealings in the first place.
AERL - These messages were on the CCME Board. A different mod there deleted them in the last 6 hours. I cannot restore them so I am cutting and pasting them here and in the AERL board.
-Andrew
Messages follow:
Date:4/25/2011 3:31:23 PM
Post #29759 of 29785
AERL - I am in lightly for 1K above $10....
Posted by: RedBull77
In reply to: pedro45 who wrote msg# 29755 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 3:57:37 PM
Post #29761 of 29785
OT - AERL - I traded it a bit in the $9.50 - $11.00 range but it's been a total dud since.
Personally, I'd say fraud is always a possible concern when you combine "China" and "gaming" in the same sentence.
Posted by: pedro45
In reply to: Seawave7 who wrote msg# 29733 Date:4/25/2011 3:13:37 PM
Post #29755 of 29785
Pardon the OT post, but is anyone in AERL?
Fraud is not a concern (it's virtually impossible), they are going to open up a new VIP room in Macau, net income could hit $100M in 2012............trading at 4x earnings.
Posted by: Koufax
In reply to: RedBull77 who wrote msg# 29761 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:20:48 PM
Post #29762 of 29785
OT - AER: - Hmmm, I wonder what could be buried in the $39MM line item called "commmissions to agents"?
Posted by: rru2s
In reply to: Koufax who wrote msg# 29762 (Removed) Date:4/25/2011 4:31:18 PM
Post #29765 of 29785
AERL: The commissions were brought up about 6 months ago as a difficult-to-verify value. The actual RCT is solid because it is audited, but AERL pays aout about 2/3 or 3/4 of the RCT reimbursement directly to their "agents" who run the VIP junkets with customers. There could be a whole lot of "arrangements" going on there which might impact the authenticity of whether AERL really retains 0.35% of the 1.35% RCT revenues. Web searches eventually lead to various message boards from gaming consultants, and it is clear that there are customary percentages over in Macau for this type of agent service. However, AERL investors have yet to see any documented evidence of formalized contract terms between AERL and its agents. Hypothetically, if the cash isn't all there, then it might easily be explained by the agent fees representing a higher percent of the take than AERL is claiming. Again, this isn't about the volume of business, since the rolling chip turnover is verified and audited. Rather, it is about what percentage of the fee that the casino pays to AERL is then passed downstream to the various junket agents who are well known for their slippery business dealings in the first place.
I deleted no posts in the last 48 hours. I disagree with some of the deletion decisions. I lack the authority to restore deleted messages.
There are 4 other moderators any one of which may have deleted posts.
-Andrew
Rames - Thanks for making those points which show among other things that AAPL is less expensive backing out cash. AAPL is my single largest holding.
-Andrew
Some AERL discussion has recently taken place on the CCME board. Below are the messages if you search for AERL on the CCME board.
Subject Author Date/Time
AERL: The commissions were brought up about 6 rru2s 04/25/2011 04:31:17 PM
AERL - Tim Sykes (noted short seller) was RedBull77 04/25/2011 04:30:15 PM
OT - AERL - I traded it a RedBull77 04/25/2011 03:57:37 PM
AERL - I am in lightly for 1K Aggie9518 04/25/2011 03:31:22 PM
Pardon the OT post, but is anyone in AERL? pedro45 04/25/2011 03:13:37 PM
swamp - you have been the last beacon foggysurf 03/19/2011 02:28:54 AM
There's been a huge selloff in China microcaps researcher59 03/18/2011 09:59:02 AM
If the news is good, I'll be looking joenatural 03/11/2011 11:33:58 AM
Incredible how the sentiment has turned on CCME. swampdonkey 02/03/2011 05:41:54 PM
My apologies to all for breaking protocol. I'm pedro45 01/15/2011 08:31:17 AM
http://techweek.org/19571bullish-movements-at-nasdaq-ivan-aerl-ccme-zlcs-zixi.ht therivetman 01/10/2011 07:37:38 AM
Here you go, he didn't have a lot gunnar 01/07/2011 06:21:26 PM
Oh Yeah I caught RT's theory. It gave SaltyDawg 01/05/2011 02:27:07 AM
-Andrew
Are those with or without the cash? i.e. AAPL has a war-chest of cash so the PE is somewhat lower. etc.
Nigel:
Hey, how are you doing?
Actually, Tothe is a friend-- not to mention brilliant-- (don't think he'd mind me saying that), and there's nothing negative or condescending intended by any such reply to Tothe who was probably making a joke himself. The issue though is that some who lurk may not realize the ownership is a rolling lingered snapshot. Not everyone is as advanced as you are. Halted or not, the Board is open to all participants of the widest array of experience from those who will forget more about investing than I'll likely ever know, right down to those just dabbling in dartboard gambling. So as moderator from time to time I'll frame an issue with some explanation. Marty does this well for accounting issues, for example, and Koufax does this well for legal issues.
Wish there were better things to talk about from CCME. Most any scintilla of information will undoubtedly end up posted here in one form or another. Sometimes I'll summarize a bunch of posts in a single post to have info all in one place for convenience too.
Again, nice to hear from you.
-Andrew
Tothe:
Institutional holdings are an indicator or snapshot from the past that is slow to update.
When you posted on 2/18/11, many institutional filings reflected holdings on the September 30 cutoff date.
Since most of the 12/31 filings were recorded including the Starr filing.
Now we're starting to see the 3/31 filings start to trickle in. There are just a handful so far.
It can take months from the trade cutoff date for the information to be reflected.
-Andrew
Institutional holdings increased to 26% from 22% my last post on 02/18/11 link below.
CCME - Some Institutional data floating in... yes the below updated institutional holdings here reflect pre-halt trades. Anyway here's the data:
WESPAC ADVISORS, LLC 3/31/2011 0 (10,660) Sold Out $0
THREE ZERO THREE CAP... 3/31/2011 12,005 (1,290) (9.70%) $143
NOMURA HOLDINGS INC 3/31/2011 5,300 5,300 New $63
LAIDLAW GROUP, LLC 3/31/2011 50,005 250 0.50% $594
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EM (CALPERS) 3/31/2011 174,400 25,600 17.20% $2,072
BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVE... 3/31/2011 19,745 (17,950) (47.62%) $235
-Andrew
Posted on CCME board here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62399970
Clarification-- I'm not posting that article as a bear case from me. Not my article. I liked the CSR buyout. I posted the article because it was recent, topical, and was the kind of thing folks on the board may want to peruse just to have seen stuff on CGS which is generally pooled here. That article may as well have been one guy's post on this board without even being an article at all.
-Andrew
CGS - Bearish generalized article - http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2011/04/25/terrible-news-for-chinese-small-cap-investors.aspx
Some Institutional data floating in... yes the below updated institutional holdings here reflect pre-halt trades. Anyway here's the data:
WESPAC ADVISORS, LLC 3/31/2011 0 (10,660) Sold Out $0
THREE ZERO THREE CAP... 3/31/2011 12,005 (1,290) (9.70%) $143
NOMURA HOLDINGS INC 3/31/2011 5,300 5,300 New $63
LAIDLAW GROUP, LLC 3/31/2011 50,005 250 0.50% $594
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EM (CALPERS) 3/31/2011 174,400 25,600 17.20% $2,072
BARCLAYS GLOBAL INVE... 3/31/2011 19,745 (17,950) (47.62%) $235
-Andrew