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.
Thanks for making my point - I am not inclined to believe there is fraud here. Additionally, I AM inclined to believe that Jacky did not "resign" voluntarily.
Anybody see the NT yet? Thought it had to be filed today - maybe it was and doesn't show up on the SEC site until tomorrrow??
Shengli - you are correct. Jacky's "right hand man" is a Starr guy and as far as I know is still with the company. Wouldn't surprise me if he is in the running to be the next CFO as I believe Starr will begin throwing its weight around a little more.
And you wouldn't offer eleven bucks either so you statement makes zero sense.....
Why root for anyone else?? LOL
I agree - they are entitled to the earnout shares based on performance but it would be a tremendously positive indication of the viability of the company and a show of support for shareholers if they were to reject the shares. It would also eliminate the discussion of "oh, they fudged 2010 earnings so they could get the shares - that's why Deloitte quit".
Something else I will throw in is that maybe a share buyback (presumably at market prices) vs. a tender offer (establishing a specific floor price for the stock) could be debated here.
Finally, I agree with HG coming out publicly assuming he is going to talk about his continued support of and involvement with the company.
-Chuck
And also could explain another reason why it seemed reasonable to let Jacky go. He is ex-PWC and that would create a conflict of interest if both were employed at the same time since one is supposed to oversee the work of the other.....
JJ - if the "truth" really "matters" to you, maybe you should wait for it to surface......
Throw some money at it? Do they really have the cash to do that? Hire a world class PR/IR firm? Do they really have the cash to do that? OF COURSE THEY DO!!!!!
RRU2 - any idea who this letter was written TO? thanks.....
The statement in the email is 100% accurate since you have the wrong company name in there......LOL
Actually, I don't think ANYONE pushed a fraud here....see my PM to you from earlier this morning.....
Salty - you are losing site of the fact that that there is a solid business "beneath the carnage". Sure, things look bleak right now and it may take awhile to determine if the company and pps can ever recover - hang tough and wait for news to show up......
Agreed Joe - I think as soon as you see their name show up on something that comes out, that would be encouraging for longs. After all, why would they want to be associated with "fraud"? FH contract is likely signed, sealed, delivered, etc. Only mystery to me is when is the actual start date (today??).......nice work on your part digging it out!
Whoops - thanks for pointing that out!! I don't think it changes the content of my original post though - the two are cut from the same cloth.....LOL
Andrew - thanks for posting this although I'm not sure why I read it since I think Herb is a big time Tool. He is right about one thing though - that Herb was out of his league then, and he would certainly be out of his league now.....in a classroom full of 3rd graders.
CCME/TF - agreed. Certainly Deloitte has no skin or liability with the Q's and I'm not inclined to believe anything that Jacky has said at this point.
I am trying to find a rational reason to hold rather than resign myself to dumping a lot of shares at 3 bucks when this this thing resumes trading......won't know for sure until we get more news over time (real cash, real buses, real business, etc.). Thanks for your repsonse........
-Chuck
CCME/TF - if 2009 stands then doesn't it become the baseline, in other words, I would believe the company did at least as well in 2010 as it did in 2009 from a financial point of view just because of the nature of the bus contracts being several years in length. Even if they added zero new buses in 2010, wouldn't that allow you to value the company today based on 2009 results or is that too much of a stretch? Obviously the Q's filed during 2010 were not audited so they become suspect under the current circumstances........
Side note - based on the DT resignation PR, I'm assuming that we will see an NT filing from these guys this week??
Probably using total outstanding including insiders as opposed to only "public float"......
Andrew - I have no more thoughts and no more opinions. I hate to be black and white about it but until we hear something from the company, everything else is pure speculation, unless Joe comes up with more "nuggets" as a result of his excellent phone work
What went on at this board over the weekend was actually sad with everyone killing time posting opinions, theories, nonsense, etc. - yes I participated to an extent, so guilty as charged. But at this point I'm really tired of it and will wait with the rest of you (with my mouth shut). I will, however, keep my eyes and ears open...thanks for all of your hard work!
-Chuck
I'd be pissed - but of course I don't own 200K shares either but the number of shares anyone owns is irrelevant.
On the other hand, as part of the "pending" news announcement, shareholders were advised that Deloitte had resigned (for whatever reason), management would be taking the company private at $15 per share (Jacky's cost basis coincidentally - or not) and anyone who cares to tender their shares should do so. Oh by the way, 7-8 million short shares still need to be covered so maybe the share price actually rises above the $15 tender price as that happens....that would be ok with me at this point given som eof the other alternatives I've seen floated here today.
To borrow hockeymans term - BWTFDIK
Agreed, but I DO think it IS plausible that Deloitte may have said that a forensic audit is necessary that Deloitte would perform (not a 2nd auditor) and CCME said no. Same as what Swamp said but not with a 2nd auditor........
You're combining two different things here. The BASE audit could very well have come back clean.
But suppose Deloitte says that they want to go "forensic" because if they don't go to that level of scrutiny, no guarantees that the base audit proves CME not to be a fraud. The Deloitte pitch is that "forensic" is in the best interest of CME and Deloitte - CME comes out of the forensic clean (no material issues, no fraud) and Deloitte's good reputation is intact.
Now let's say that CME decides that they have had enough of the "fun" of being a US listed company and says, "we're going private". No need for forensic, no need for Deloitte, CME packs up and heads off to HK, Deloitte resigns.
Any questions?
Actually not....more like pretty pathetic "journalism"
As a long, this is the scenario I am rooting for.......
That's an odd combo - Deloitte found "nothing significant" yet you can't rule out them resigning? WTF?
Balls of Steel?? So THAT'S the clanging noise that I hear when I walk down the hallway now.....
Joe - you know you are absolutely right; it's like a bunch of fish flailing around on the pier, beating themselves senseless!
TF - probably too big a stretch to suggest that if an NT is NOT filed tomorrow (10th) or Friday that the K will likely be on time?
The Jack does and he's not........
Chensiona - can one of you options guys please enlighten those like me, who know squat about options, as to the significance of these trades in the scheme of things? Thanks much!!
What's your reaction to Fleishman-Hillard? TIA.......
LOL - I hope he's not in any trouble now that the beans have been spilled........
I figure the company may have shared some info with a few select shareholders and they may have told 2 friends and they may have told 2 friends and so on. It's likely that those who may have heard about it first can be characterized as significantly long and have defended the company and the stock through the thick and thin of its existence, as opposed to those who have no particular allegiance and tend to trade in and out of it.......just a guess.
-Chuck
Funny part is you all look alike - Kind of like some goofy "band of brothers" or something. Just kidding guys, just kidding.....
Andrew - sorry, didn't mean to imply that you wrote it. Just asking if you believe the author may have legal training.....thanks.
-Chuck
The last sentence in the disclaimer basically says it's fiction, yet very well written - maybe someone with legal training, Andrew?
Guessing you can thank that Dimwit Herbie for that.....