Are you DB Research?

"isnt it how you suppose to be? flip flop your trades and opinions to be on the right side of the trade? "

They way you're doing it, only if you want to pump and dump and manipulate stock prices.

Or it means we should never listen to you as you'll flip flop your opinion on a dime to fit whatever side of the trade you're on.

This is what you told us about GURE:


GURE is the most legit company among chinese RTOS , are you kidding me?

Verified by 4 government agencies , show me another chinese that has done that ,

Verified by ground investigation , Business bureau , officials in person by retail investors.

Verified by a third party independent appraisal company.

Company pledged not so sell any shares for 3 years.

business licence number posted on SEC mathes the one on china's government site with the same value in asset.

business is licensed by the chinese government , why dont you check it out yourself?

Like I said , among all chinese RTO GURE is the most legit one.

Dont forget singed off by DDT and BDO AFTER chinese fiasco

I think you might be missing a few companies in that list....

LLEN - This is actual due diligence. Not innuendo or pump talk:

http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_L/threadview?m=te&bn=106842&tid=47630&mid=47630&tof=2&frt=1#47630

Shows that Geo is outright lying on the notary document.

LLEN - John if you think that GEO is so right all the time, then why is LLEN's name all over the actual site of Ping Yi?

Another investor just posted this:

http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/946901-tsquared/331231-pictures-of-ping-yi-operations-over-extended-period-of-time-confirming-llens-ownership

Geo never went to the mine. I wonder why - maybe because it doesn't support their short thesis?

Manipulation at its most blatant.

They can't mine unless they have the proper permit and license. They're mining at Ping Yi, so they must have the proper documentation.

MANIPULATOIN ON THIS BOARD BY MODERATORS - Why did such a good, informative post get deleted? That was good, honest information that was not attacking anyone.

There is so much misinformation, pumping, and innuendo on this particular board, that when a good point comes along it's very disturbing to see it get deleted.

Is it because BURRP is a moderator, is short the stock (clearly thinks its a fraud) and friends with John Harrell? Isn't that was what Ihub was sued for a couple years ago?

I'm going to start recording what is deleted vs. not deleted going forward.

LLEN - Keep this message in mind (I'll remind you if needed).

LLEN will still be here in a year, two years, and so on. They are not a scam; I've been to the mines, verified with the officials there that they own what they represent.

There will be no halt, no investigation. Geoinvesting paid this guy to say what he said.

But please, let's revisit this later and I can point out that LLEN is still plugging along and still executing.

But then again, everyone here is a trader; nothing long-term.

You prove my point. Only insults and misinformation.

Like I said, I'm willing to have a thoughtful discussion on LLEN, if you can.

If you re-read my posts, I did not insult you on YHGG.


(By the way, I love how I'm trying to talk about due diligence on a company has resulted in me being banned. Is this how an attempt at discussing due diligence is treated? I have been to LLEN's sites and here is someone who is telling everyone that it's a scam, and yet the only person who is willing to discuss this and share their knowledge of the company is banned from doing so. JoeNatural lied and said that LLEN has zero cash. That's not true, yet me trying to discuss why it isn't true is not going to happen. Very telling...)

I pointed out how Geo got it wrong, on many levels, but you always immediately revert to insults rather than trying to have an intelligent discussion. If you want to try to have a discussion, I'm game, but so far its quickly descended into slander from you.

They just made an acquisition, so clearly they can execute their business plan. They also have the debt financing from ICBC to utilize as they need too.

Which leads me to believe you are simply "trash talk[ing] and misleading or manipulative posts".

(pulled from http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62884966)

"If you were to pay attention, you'd see the topic was the questioning of my DD capabilities ...... "

.... On YHGG.....

I think the topic is YHGG, not LLTP.

"...you can have common sense in both your fears and your assumptions."

Exactly, you need common sense, a level head, and reason when comparing a "Mr. Wu" to the management at LLEN.

"LLEN - exactly my point regarding Wu, and the opposite point also holds water... "


Not really. "Mr. Wu" is an anonymous person with no references or background in a land of over one billion people. LLEN has US-citizen management with backgrounds and professional verifications.

Mr. Wu also disconnected his phone. You can still reach and talk to LLEN.

Should I continue to point out the differences between a "Mr. Wu" and LLEN?

GEO presented a purported SAIC filing that has no effective date on it.

LLEN has an executed purchase/sale agreement, a legal opinion verifying the mine ownership, an auditor opinion, and investors have been to mine itself on several occaisions (with and without management present) to verify with people and local govt officials.

Maybe if Geo actually went to the mine as well... but to present a questionable piece of paper (by the way, you see the 2nd page of their purported SAIC document? It says "page 1 of 1". How is that part of the first page?) and claim it's "proof" is quite ludicrous. Not quite the "on-the-ground" due diligence you'd expect.

Geo’s piece was really weak and full of factual holes. That is probably why they couldn’t even get Seekingalpha to publish the report. If you have any specific questions, I’d be happy to answer them, but there are many inconsistencies and factual errors in their “due diligence”. Their "star witness" even disconnected his phone since then.

LLEN - I've done a lot of work on this name. What are your concerns?

Ha, for someone who is such a internet tough guy, you don't seem to have much conviction in what you say.

But then again, nothing you said has come true yet.

Only two and a half weeks left until those puts you bought (based off of Geo's *splendid* work I might add) expire worthless John.

Are you going to buy more puts, or go short LLEN?

"The same thing will happen to you with your continued positivity on the space. "


You see, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not positive on the space. I'm not negative on the space. I'm *objective* on the space. You seemed to have limited your line of thinking into everything (or everyone) as either "postive" or "negative": this is what got you in trouble in the first place.

You need to not be positive or negative, but rather objective on the companies you look at. Trust me, I see a lot of fraud (more so, just crappy companies), but I also see good companies as a result of *actual* due diligence.

Yes, it's much easier to label the entire market of companies as fraud, rather than admit that you got caught up in hype and might've let you guard down or didn't do as much work as you should've.

Much easier for the ego...

Just jumping in here, Tim actually makes a decent amount of sense. 80% of the posters here were all touting stocks 18 months ago like the CCMEs of the world, etc, without much reason other than it was "Chinese" and the stock price kept going up.

Now the pendulum has swung the other way for still no other reason than the word "chinese" and the downward direction of the stock prices.

Instead, some here (the 20% or less) have decided to not follow the crowd and the innuendo, but rather actually do the work to see which companies are good investments and which to stay away from. These investors didn't follow the "pump" crowd, and are not following the "all china is fraud" crowd either.

I don't think you have the grasp of LLEN like you claim you do. You seem to just follow the Geo bandwagon blindly (or you are Geo). Which shareholders of LLEN did you decide to quiz? Geoinvesting when they were paid to promote it?

With the confidence you have, then I suggest you short the stock.

The seller took $16 million. He took 3 million shares at $5.40 per share. The transaction was not at-market, it was an above-market transaction. He sold 51% of the mine to LLEN.

But please, by all means start selling borrowed shares. You seem to really know what you're doing.

"Do you really believe LLEN could acquire a segment expected to generate $10 million in EBIDTA by paying only $8.5 million (current value of 3 million LLEN shares)? "

From the release: "Purchase Price: Approximately $16.2 million"

...For 51%...

Double-check your numbers. Or short on incomplete data, doesn't matter to me.

LLEN: An all-share transaction... It's starting to get really comical how bad Geo's calls have been. They should fire their team and hire some real due diligence professionals.

But then again, I never really believed their work was honest and with integrity.

It's an observation of you - how can I "spin" an observation? Like saying its raining outside: just an observation. When you can't debate a topic, you resort to personal attacks instead. Simple observation.

I notice that when you can't debate a topic, you turn to personal insults and attacks.

I can go to www.coalmineclassifieds.com right now and post for advertisement for the sale of one of Peabody’s mines. Doesn’t mean I will be able to get it sold, but there is no verification process to post an advertisement.

What Joenatural (aka John Harrell) didn’t mention is that the advertisement for the mine for sale that Geo lists in their blog is for a mine with a totally different permit number than LLEN’s mine. It’s not even one of LLEN’s mines - a different permit number in each of Geo’s links.

But the scenario Tim was referencing is still an interesting point that happens more often in the US than I’m sure people would like to admit. If I’m the former owner of a mine (or anyone for that matter who can talk the talk), I would absolutely and 100% list a mine for sale even if I didn’t have rights to it or even if the company didn't want to sell it. If I get a potential buyer for, say, $100 million, I would go to the owners of the mine and tell them I have a buyer who is willing to pay $90 million. If the transaction gets done (there's a price for everything), I just pocketed a cool $10 million for doing nothing at all. If the transaction doesn’t get done, no hair off my back; I just continue listing mines that I don’t own for sale; one will eventually hit. The numbers in that example don’t matter as much – it’s the concept.

I’ve seen (and still see) this happen surprisingly frequently in Kentucky. Everyone knows coal so everyone is looking to sell other people’s property and pocket a get-rich-quick commission. The funnier thing is that I typically see three (or even four) middlemen.

Classy reply. Good job sticking on subject and addressing my points about LLEN and your unfortunate history of due diligence.

By the way, you might want to read-up on their bank debt financing they have to do these acquisitions.

I think I might be at my post limit for the day, but thanks for the tip on buying MARK. Oh...wait...you mean you jumped to conclusions on that one too?

"But Geo isn't wrong..."

And yet they can't get seekingalpha to publish their findings as they stand... crazy I tells ya!

How about this: if the stock is halted within the next five months, I'll buy 5 chicken hats from you for my family. If it's not, you cancel your monthly premium membership with Geoinvesting and give me an admission that Geo was wrong and that you were following them blindly into this.

Either outcome, you're getting more money than you would otherwise. The only thing you have to lose is a little pride and ego.

Geo's work was so very bad on LLEN. They had inconsistencies, errors, and misleading statements. They couldn't even get it published as an article on SeekingAlpha, the bastion of misrepresentations...

You also said Greenberg was mentioning the company. And you said there would be a halt last week. And you said it was going on SeekingAlpha.

Geez, how many bad calls can one person make?

Wells notice recieved.

Very odd what constitutes "impressive" due diligence nowadays... Googling the word spongetech is hardly any due diligence.

Wow, I’m absolutely shocked. Not so much that you lost $2 million on a scam investment when you did NO research or due diligence (did you call management? Did you call the suppliers? Did you do background checks?), but more so that you’re clearly more concerned about your bonus and worth rather than trying to get your investors’ money back. You probably should be fired; you definitely would be if you were working for me.