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.
NEP - New presentation from the R&R conference:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/787251/000121465911000757/ex99_1.htm
Hi Rick,
I'm going to assume you tried to contact CV Starr in Shanghai or HK before your piece. What did they tell you about the company?
Thanks
everyone on the ground in China tells me that something is wrong here
lol, jiu shi!
I hope he discusses it with the SEC
I don't discuss what clients retain me for.
How can that tape possibly be considered legal evidence? If I stab my neighbor, can I then tape a conversation between myself and someone who I pay to admit to the crime and then admit that tape as a defense?
Or someone's writing them, lol
I still think that it represents accumulation, most likely by a short. That's the most plausible explanation that I can come up with, but I would still love to hear other opinions since this is not action that one sees very often.
The case of the disappearing options:
Okay, open interest on the Mar5 calls right now shows as 1.339k on my screen but over 9000 contract traded yesterday. Where did they go?
Daytrading a deep ITM call contract at those volumes with a 4% bid/ask spread? Would you care to assign a probability to that theory?
Then we need an explanation for how 4000 of the same calls were traded yesterday yet the open interest barely changed today.
I haven't seen any evidence that the shorts bought all these calls and immediately called the shares in.
How else would there have been volume of 4000 in the March5 calls yesterday and today the open interest barely moved if they weren't being exercised immediately?
Although Bolly bands are backwards looking measures of vol while implied vol is (at least in theory) a forward looking measure.
Are you still planning on posting your piece, UC? That was really solid work.
Lol, welcome to Ihub ... you may now proceed with the perfunctory statements of how you've been long this stock for ages.
Enjoying the weekend and counting the days until we get a real IR firm. Hopefully one that is responsive, can get the story out to bigger and more institutions, and is connected enough to change the debate in the news media.
How funny is this? MW's address in HK from their email:
"Muddy Waters Research | Hong Kong Kowloon | Hong Kong, Hong Kong 000000, Hong Kong "
Guess they don't want to receive mail/subpoenas/etc?
CCME - Burp's right ... the following is the funniest statement in their email.
"Such evidence will include transcripts of meetings and telephone conversations between Muddy Waters, LLC and individuals with authoritative knowledge of the matters in contention. "
Lol, wtf is that supposed to mean?
CCME - Notice how MW didn't mention their own 'gross misstatements' regarding the Apple/Switow connection, lol ... f$%^cking lawyers
Lol, where did his SAT docs go?
NEP - Nice piece posted on SA today by Atticvs Research
http://seekingalpha.com/article/253160-china-north-east-petroleum-s-shengyuan-acquisition-significant-upside-potential?source=yahoo
edit -- that I see someone already posted ...
CCME - Which means he also probably called the low for CCME a few days ago.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11005450/1/china-mediaexpress-in-a-bind-against-shorts.html
If getting Deloitte to sign off on the 10K was a meaningless event, we would probably not be seeing a site like this being created:
http://www.deloittewatch.com/
Not sure, but definitely coming up soon. I'm looking to add more if it dips below $10 again.
At least it shows that the shorts do fear the 10K, though. After this stunt, it will be difficult for them to discredit the audit.
Thank you for setting this up, Burp. Hat tip to you, sir!
Question for the board --
Assuming that DTT signs off on the 2010 10K (a safe assumption imo, but obviously not one for the shorts), what will be the remaining line of attack for the shorts? Is the signed 10K the endgame, or is there any reasonable way to subsequently argue that DTT is still either:
a) missing something
or
b) in on it ?
Just trying to figure out how insane/convinced the shorts are.
It is probably not even legal to give a third party access to tax documents
Which makes it all the more interesting when people roll up with their SAT documents from 'Lao Wang's house of credit reports'
That is his first article, not the one relating to the SAIC/SAT docs.
Anyone have any take on the open interest numbers for the puts? Still looks like we have a high number of outstanding contracts in the Feb10, Mar6, Mar7.5, and Mar10 contracts.
CCME stock loan rates from IB:
I'll try to keep updating this each day. The current posted indicative rate is 64.8% ... that's right, right now you pay 64% annualized to borrow CCME shares in order to short.
Date -- Was Available -- Indicative Rate Mean
03-FEB-11 Yes -63.26
02-FEB-11 Yes -62.06
01-FEB-11 No -61.86
31-JAN-11 No -60.78
30-JAN-11 No -60.30
29-JAN-11 No -60.30
28-JAN-11 No -62.03
27-JAN-11 No -62.49
26-JAN-11 No -60.76
25-JAN-11 No -50.14
CCME - The posted stock loan rate at IB is still around 63% fwiw
Shorting increases the effective size of the public float.
Think of it this way, when you short a share you borrow a share from a current long and sell it someone else. Therefore, both of those longs are currently long the same share of stock, you have just created another 'share'.
CCME - No problem.
Here is a YMB link that has links for both the GH and Northland buy reiterations:
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=101061&tid=45805&mid=45813&tof=60&rt=1&frt=2&off=1
He came out the next day and reiterated his strong buy and the stock's position as their 2011 top pick ... how is that not a clear rebuttal to Citron?
You know this guy spent the entire previous night awake with his compliance department before reiterating the recommendation. Given the reputational risk that the analyst and the firm has in this situation, the answer to Citron implied by this act is clearly "F^*K You!"
It's unreasonable to expect these guys to publicly get into a pissing match with a random blogger.
Rumor of an impending hit piece, obviously.
I'm not familiar with the intricacies of securities law, but who would be at fault here:
a) the analyst who hears word of the upcoming hit piece and tells his clients to sell now and buy back later?
or b) the blogger who perpetrates the act?
It's an interesting question of law and ethics.
Well, the next day he published a piece reiterating CCME as a 2011 top pick and a strong buy.
I doubt their firm wants to get into a public pissing match with a fraudulent blogger.
Also want to add that I don't think people should be shocked that analysts talk to shorts. Obviously they need to be careful about what they say or how what they say may be taken out of context, but it shouldn't be shocking that analysts need to hear all sides of a story.
100% in agreement with your sentiments on this. It's shocking and saddening that manipulation of this sort is apparently not taken more seriously by the regulators of our capital markets.
CCME - Just quick points regarding synthetic long replacement:
1) Buying the synthetic long forces short exposure onto the market maker who sold you the position. In general, the person(s) who sold you the position need to buy the stock from the market in order to hedge their position at that point.
2) Shorting the stock and buying the synthetic is not riskless/costless as the stock borrow rate needs to be paid and there is always a threat of forced buyback. At ~60% annualized borrowing rates, these costs cannot be ignored. I also notice that IB currently has shares available at the moment which would seem to indicate that there has been short covering recently.
I'd also like to wish everyone a Happy Chinese New Year. Gong Xi Fa Cai!
In all fairness, though, the accounts are being audited by Deloitte right now, and Deloitte will sign off on those numbers. That will ultimately be a stronger statement than the company releasing a copy of a bank statement that the shorts will just say is fake anyway.