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.
Nasdaq have removed this info but I seem to remember you writing that Goldman increased their position in Q1. Or is my memory failing?
There was an initial trashing of the results and fraud calling on the CGS board which I believe influenced the late day selling. In the current environment people should be more rigorous with their analysis and resulting commentary.
As for dairy margins - look at what ADY & SYUT are doing to get quality milk supply - don't think the US has had much of melamine problem to date.
I think you are being a little unfair to PDG. I don't believe it was stated that shorts are "bad guys". The argument put forward was that they were naturally pushing for a chain of events that would put $'s in their pockets and as such were "bad" for longs.
There is a serious lack of factual information on which to trade here and from a longs perspective prolonging the delay until an audited 10-K is available is obviously the best answer.
Not clear that there is anyone to trust in this story - even DTT resort to Citron / Muddy Waters as justification.
No it continued being traded as HPJ -only the company name changed
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Hong-Kong-Highpower-iw-3832817562.html?x=0&.v=1
I owned HPJ at the time they went through a name change last year. Although the stock seemed to be trading ok on the market I wasn't able to sell it on ETrade because they were awaiting info from company re new name/symbol. It was interesting that the price rose over the 3 days it was locked up since if you owned it you couldn't sell it on Etrade. Think its worth pursuing to make sure something similar cant happen here.
So shorts having to cover would be paying borrowing costs forever??
Looking at SEC filings they have track record of being late...who knows.
Interesting FT article today re non-bank originated loans - shadow banking - little wonder so many cash problems in CGS
Chinese finance: A shadowy presence
ft.com/cms/s/0/76f6ed48-5bc4-11e0-b8e7-00144feab49a.html#axzz1IHcBUoit
I find it bizarre that the only "evidence" put forward is the Citron & Muddy Waters "reports" that have been demonstrated to be at least suspect.
If anonymous tip-offs from fund managers (positions unknown) weighs more than the work DTT do then what are they getting paid $500,000 to do?
To quote Lucy Kellaway in today's FT....
"The better she got to know China, she said, the less she expected to be able to get to the bottom of anything".
At least he's probably maximized the number of shorts.....
Google Finance has open, close, low , high from Dec 9 2010.
I think this is the beginning of that discussion...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=60969221
Keep posting this on a regular basis ...
Instead of Option 2
How about Deloitte hasn't found anything but want to do more work before signing off on 10-K given the scrutiny on them. Company wants to release earnings but know have to release fully audited earnings so decide to stop trading until Deloitte finishes. They know there are no major issues and want to exercise fiduciary duty towards shareholders.
No, I think if you read Shermadog's posts you'll find announcements come at all hours...
Pretty average performance for the Chinese small-cap space -
Check SPU, CNIT, CHRM, NIV etc
Risk-off winning out.
Sounds a bit like preferred lies. Not sure your identicon would approve but its your privilege.
Long & Aien Aristeuein!
Private Board
I think this board has a significant impact in its current format. I would guess the ratio of readers:posters is pretty high but perhaps the moderators can confirm.
Many of these non-posters are long and remain long due to the quality of dd on show here. That short arguments are discussed and dismissed is a strength.
I'm not sure what advantage a private board would have- a smaller group of similar minded people isnt likely to be as effective in developing new lines of thought and it will certainly reduce the impact on the broader group of long investors.
Indeed in the last 30 days we've heard:
-the company doesn't exist
-it's really only a fraction of the size they say it is
-you wont make any money investing in it after we shorts have hit it
- we were duped
What next, strong buy???
Andrew
Benzinga have a number of Premium Services (Options strategy etc). I haven't found anything that discloses their position relative to how or if news reporting/ opinion is separated from the investment desk.
Scott Rubin's articles have had a pro-MW bias and when you call him out in comments or emails he backs off on statements he has made or acknowledges omissions he has made. I've always suspected he's just pushing a point of view he's been given not one he actually believes.
UpstateChris- It was a Rick Pearson article for thestreet.com.
Reading up how the "Big Lie" gets disseminated and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda has been useful to me in looking critically at these hit pieces.
Page views?
Why do you think Dragontrader appeared when they did this am, then Justabroker when they did this pm - coordinating their message with pt 4 Rick Pearson article.
Justabroker 2000-
Like it - all you new posters with the same talking point - is this your marching order for the day? Your bear raids might help you cover at a lower price but firmer hands are also picking up stock at bargain prices.
They should transfer the comment section with the article to the blog. There is too much updating / moving of articles that eliminate comments going on.
Get yourself another email account and use a proxy server.
Thanks
Now can you sort this SEC submission thing out!
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59728098
I guess someone should get CCME input into the merits of aggressively pursuing it.
Benzinga have had a series of articles (Scott Rubin authored) on the situation which we have responded to. On Sunday night they reissued articles with all the dissenting comments removed and Tweeted this everywhere on Monday am. They seem to have an agenda.
The google docs that Koufax suggested does that.
if you have the pdf upload to google docs and then you can share it from there
The difference is independent vs not independent analysts. I liked Jaywalk when it was on E-Trade because of that difference and I thought their ratings made more sense to me. They also cover more stocks - I bought BMA at $10 thanks to them so I'm biased.
His articles almost always followed the initial attacks so it isnt clear to me he wasn't just an ambulance chaser then. I think that has changed now though.
I agree the SP action can be a bit stressing but the whole debate is very educational in terms understanding the company, the role of sentiment and how social media influences things.
The board did a great job of getting the argument over the weekend and we need to continue.
Scott Rubin's Benzinga article has been updated ..
all our comments have been removed and a spam filter is stopping any new ones being written
http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/analyst-color/11/02/837665/is-china-media-express-a-fraud-ccme
Over the weekend his only apparent correction is Ping Luo's gender.
Bill Cara's Week In Review Calls For SEC / Stock Exchange Intervention
http://caracommunity.com/content/bill-caras-week-review-6-2011-2
"In any event, I don’t like markets that are not independent and free. I don’t like ‘buying syndicates’ just as much as I don’t like ‘short syndicates’. It’s all manipulation and part of that effort involves the use of media to spin stories their way. I’d like to see the regulators spend more time on this troublesome issue.
We touched a bit on that this week with the Muddy Waters (so-called) Research stories purporting to disclose the extreme fraud in many China-headquartered US-listed small cap stocks. To my eyes, this looks very much like the mirror image of “pump and dump” – taking short positions and then writing stories to get the public to take an action. If those stories are materially misleading, I call it fraud.
But, what concerns me the most is not the bit players like Muddy Waters, but the lack of action by SEC regulators, by the stock exchanges and the big auditing firms, all of which are involved one way or another with these listed companies. Who then is left to serve and protect the public? Are we really living in the old Wild West where the only power that people held was the point of a gun? "
Its a long document, worth reading always. The above quote is 90% way through. Good quote for SEC complaints.