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.
tomorrow we could see a very dark green day!
seems there were some mass-buyings. I will not protest hopefully we'll see moren of such days in the near future. From my view scei is too much undervalued!
what kind of an evaluation is that? can you explain yourself better?
that is not possible. the sec would know this
this is not a scam. this is not the same history like cbeh!
the way scei react against the allegations gives hope
somebody can tell me why DEER lost 15% in a week?
there is no new accountant! I follow cbeh more than a year
seems cbeh is one big joke, a big scam... I just can say I am very shocked about this whole history and I have no more confiance in china stocks. Seems al those china small caps are robbering the west.
even my respect and confiance about the big four-accountants is about 0%! all one big joke. the SEC... pfff, I don't know what are they doing... maybe playing with games on their computer?
I can say I lost a lot of money and I am very frustrated cause I believed in this company (and many other chinese company's). I believed cause KPMG did the audit, cause many institutionals invest big money, cause many analist says this was a goldmine....
pfff... all one big joke
KPMG resigned!!! hope that scum of cbeh-management may go to a Chinese prison
Changes in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant.
On April 26, 2011, a member of the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of China Integrated Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) received a letter from KPMG confirming that the client-auditor relationship with the Company ceased (the “April 26 Letter”). In a subsequent letter, dated April 27, 2011, the substance of which is disclosed in response to Item 4.02(b) below, KPMG confirmed that it had resigned as of its April 26 Letter and such resignation was effective immediately (the “April 27 Letter”).
The audit report of KPMG on the financial statements of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2010, does not contain any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, and was not qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.
From December 16, 2010, when KPMG was engaged, through KPMG’s resignation on April 26, 2011, there were no disagreements between the Company and KPMG on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure, or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreements, if not resolved to the satisfaction of KPMG would have caused KPMG to make reference to the subject matter of the disagreements in connection with its reports. As disclosed below in Item 4.02(b) below, there was a reportable event as described under Item 304(a)(1)(v)(B) which, according to the April 27 Letter, led to KPMG’s resignation. Other than set forth above and disclosed under Item 4.02(b), there were no other disagreements or reportable events as described under Item 304(a)(1) of Regulation S-K.
The Company provided a copy of this disclosure to KPMG and an opportunity to furnish the Company with a letter stating whether it agrees or disagrees with the statements made by the Company herein in response to Item 304(a) of Regulation S-K.
Item 4.02(b) Non-Reliance on Previously Issued Financial Statements or a Related Audit Report or Completed Interim Review.
On April 27, 2011, in a letter also addressed to the Audit Committee, KPMG referenced the Resignation Letter and informed the Audit Committee that its previously issued audit reports dated March 16, 2011 related to the consolidated balance sheet of the Company and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010, and the related consolidated statement of income and comprehensive income, stockholder’s equity, and cash flows for the year then ended and effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2010 should no longer be relied upon.
In its letter KPMG indicated that its resignation was due to, in its view, the inconsistency between management’s representation to KPMG that it will fully cooperate with the special investigation requested and authorized by the Audit Committee and the manner of management’s conduct during the investigation, and such inconsistency has made KPMG unable to rely on management’s representations in connection with its 2010 audits of the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company.
The Audit Committee has discussed the matters disclosed in response to this Item 4.02(b) with KPMG.
see the 8k-filling of the sec... sleeping?
Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
On April 21, 2011, the board of directors (the “Board”) of China Integrated Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) received notification from Mr. Larry Goldman that effective immediately, he resigned as a member of the Board of the Company. At the time of his resignation, Mr. Goldman also served as Chairman of the Audit Committee.
Mr. Goldman submitted his resignation to the Board via email on April 21, 2011. In his resignation letter, he indicated that recent events relating to the independent investigation conducted by the Audit Committee, including the resignation of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, the law firm engaged by the Audit Committee to conduct the independent investigation, have made him to conclude that he cannot continue to serve as a director of the Company. A copy of his resignation letter is included with this 8-K as Exhibit 17.1 and incorporate herein in its entirety by reference.
The Company has provided Mr. Goldman a copy of the disclosures it is making in this item 5.02 no later than the day of filing this Form 8-K with the SEC. The Company has also provided him the opportunity to furnish the Company, as promptly as possible, a letter addressed to the Company stating whether he agrees with the statements made by the Company in this Item 5.02, and , if not, stating the respects in which he does or does not agree. The Company will file any letter received from Mr. Goldman by the Company as an exhibit by an amendment to this Form 8-K within two business days after receipt by the Company.
The Company is considering potential candidates for a replacement. Upon appointment of a new director the Company will file a Current Report on Form 8-K.
2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Item 8.01 Other Events
On April 21, 2011, the Audit Committee of the Company received a notification from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (“Pillsbury”) that effective immediately, it resigned as special counsel to the Audit Committee. In addition, Pillsbury notified the Audit Committee that it has been authorized by Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP and King & Wood to advise Audit Committee that effective immediately, each firm has resigned from its engagement.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
(d) Exhibits
Exhibit No. Description
17.1 Resignation Letter from Mr. Larry Goldman, dated as of April 21, 2011.
the resignation of Larry Goldman?
the resignation of the law firm?
pfff... the nightmare is real and clear!
I'll hope those cbeh-criminals get a good punishment! maybe a chinese prison?
what is going on with this one? day after day this going down and I find no news! is there short interest?
they could halt it for months...
are all these institutional investors fools?
are they all too stupid, misleaded bij cbeh?
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=CBEH+Major+Holders
why don't we hear news from KPMG? can't they confirm there is nothing wrong? its almost one month ago the cbeh-troubels started...
nice move up today! the end of the tunnel?
China Integrated Energy: Investigators and KPMG Begin Sorting Through Evidence
http://seekingalpha.com/article/261800-china-integrated-energy-investigators-and-kpmg-begin-sorting-through-evidence?source=yahoo
I don't trust anybody anymore in the financial world! the banks, the sec, the big 4 accountancy's... its all one big crap. and now I'm losing my confidence in many china small caps.
even that stupid system of 'short selling'. who the hell invented that? that whole system creates idiots like sinclair, little fred and those idiots (I think muddy waters or so) from hongkong. this is no capitalism anymore. its destroying capitalism.
I wanna invest in company's and wanna see creating value. investing in short-selling systems to create value when it is going down is totaly unacceptable.
there is still no confidence by many people since the 2009-debacle... all the money stays on the banks... I think it will stay for a longer time
when bernankes Q2 in the next month will stop it will be chaos. I wonder how long it will take when bernanke present Q3
No, I am disappointed in cbeh. what says KPMG? nothing... I find that is not a good sign! why they don't go to court?
Short Seller Attack on China Integrated Energy Is Different
http://seekingalpha.com/article/259895-short-seller-attack-on-china-integrated-energy-is-different
Last week, an anonymous short seller posted an instablog attacking China Integrated Energy (CBEH) that drove the shares down more than 30% within minutes. Admittedly, I wrote a favorable article about CBEH, based on the valuation I derived from its financial filings, when it was trading just south of $6 per share. I believe that the short term success of this attack on CBEH may be due to recent, though rare successes, of Muddy Waters “hit pieces” on RINO and China MediaExpress Holdings (CCME). I would like to outline a few key differences between what is happening to CBEH and what happened to RINO and CCME as it pertains to CBEH's valuation.
Though it is very early in the storyline for CBEH, there are a few key differences between the successful short attack on CCME and the attack currently taking place on CBEH. CBEH’s short attacker has experienced wild success in the short term unjustifiably due to his timely release of the report in close proximity to a rare succesful short attack CCME. In actuality there are many short attacks happening right now, probably in the realm of 30+, some highly visible, some not. Only two that I can recall in recent history have actually led to auditor resignations or de-listings. Both were from the same author, Muddy Waters Research.
Below I will break down the important differences between CCME via Muddy Water’s successful campaigns, and CBEH’s current short attacker.
First, the short seller behind CBEH is anonymous. CCME’s is not. This should raise some red flags for the short side of the table. The only recent successful short attacks that resulted in de-listings or auditor resignations were both from Muddy Waters Research.
Second, the CBEH report relies entirely on SAIC filings for the basis of its allegations. The successful Muddy Waters reports rely little on these filings, while instead conducting ground work, checking supplier and customer relationships and speaking to a lot of different people on the ground in China.
Many articles have recently been written outlining the fact that short sellers falsely cite SAIC filings as legitimate financial documents. They are not... Per the SAIC own website, its mission is in...
"...maintaining market order and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of businesses and consumers by carrying out regulations in the fields of enterprise registration, competition, consumer protection, trademark protection and combating economic illegalities."
SAIC filings are not audited. They are not used to calculate taxes. They are not meant to be used to analyze company's finances or value. No one except short sellers writing “hit pieces” would use the financial information in SAIC filings to analyze the company’s value. The SAIC office is for distributing business licenses, and its financial filings are simply a complimentary subcomponent to receive a license. The financials filed through the SAIC don’t even have a mandate to be updated by the company. Meanwhile the SAT office in China is responsible for taxation, yet this short seller makes no reference to these more relevant SAT filings.
The fact that this author relies solely on SAIC filings for nearly all these allegations, while doing no customer or supplier checks, should raise some more red flags with would-be-followers of this research.
Muddy Waters actually provides some form of evidence about CCME that its suppliers and customers relationships don’t exist or are inflated. CBEH’s attacker does none of this, but instead relies solely on unreliable SAIC filings.
Third, the CBEH report attacks absolutely everything under the sun, while CCME's attack was focused on its relationships with its customers. When so much is attacked ranging from its profitability in every single segment, to its cash balance, to its M&A deals, to its capital raises, to its old auditor, to its ownership structure, and more, readers should seriously consider the possibility of a biased smear campaign.
Wholesale Segment
CBEH’s short attacker does not even make an attempt to debunk CBEH’s relationship with its suppliers and customers in its wholesale business. Instead it vaguely calls into question the economics of the dealings as unfavorable to Shaanxi Yanchang Group, China Petroleum (SNP) and SINOPEC (SHI), all high profile and visible government owned entities.
“We find it hard to believe that the two largest oil companies would engage in such trading arrangements…” with CBEH.
The line above is the sole basis for claiming fraud on CBEH’s wholesale segment. He provides nothing to say the sales and relationships don’t exist. Instead he provides a vague opinion that the wholesale oil business adds no value to refiners and it shouldn’t exist at all. Of course this is an asinine observation, as there are many oil wholesalers and distributors in China and around the world. It is a viable business segment with a long history.
Given the public nature of CBEH’s suppliers and customers, which are the largest and most visible state owned oil companies in China, it should be much easier to prove those relationships don’t exist than with small, not-visible companies with which Muddy Waters has had to deal. Readers should question why there is no attempt to debunk these relationships.
Biodiesel Segment
This author provides no evidence that the biodiesel segment is not profitable. There are no calculations, no models, and no attempt at any sort of P&L analysis. There is no refuting of CBEH’s relationships with its customers or suppliers in this segment either. There is no evidence presented that the sales don't exist. The only thing this author does is provide purported conversations with Gushan Environmental Energy, another biodiesel producer in China.
“We asked Gushan management whether it was possible to use Chinese Prickly Ash as a feedstock. They only responded saying that they are trying to use jatropha and castor bean oils as feedstocks in small quantities.” (source)
If you read this purported line from Gushan’s management, it doesn’t even support the author’s uneducated claim that you can’t use Chinese Prickly Ash as an input. This author has no education about bioediesel production, and is instead trying to put words in Gushan management's mouth that aren't even supporting his argument.
Additionally, the references to Gushan and another biodiesel producer failing to list CBEH as a competitor is misleading. He is citing a full year 2008 filed 10-k. CBEH has ramped up its biodiesel segment more recently, so why is this author citing a 2008 competitor report?
Beyond what I perceive to be misleading competitor references, the main argument directed toward the biodiesel segment is that CBEH’s margins are far greater than Gushan’s.
This argument is weak for three reasons. One, Gushan shut down several of its plants due to disputes with local tax authorities during 2009 and 2010. It is producing a small fraction of its sales volumes, while depreciation eats away at its margins. You cannot compare CBEH’s margins, a company operating at full capacity, with Gushan’s margins, which hardly operates at all.
Second, Gushan itself-- the very same company he is citing here to argue against biodiesel being a profitable business-- has openly said in recent months that it is planning to reopen its biodiesel plants. Gushan itself said through a recent Q&A with management that I actually conducted, that it expects to be profitable under current market conditions. At the same time this author is claiming biodiesel is not profitable, the source it uses to make this same claim has openly contradicted this sentiment.
Third, this author fails to recognize the differences between GU and CBEH’s production processes, which on top of the fact that GU is not even operating right now, would lead to different margins.
Retail Gas Segment
Without exception, this entire argument is based on SAIC filings from the acquired gas stations. He claims the SAIC filings don’t show as much income as CBEH reports to the SEC.
SAIC filings should not be relied on for financial information. They are not consolidated financial statements, are not used for taxation, are not audited, and are not even updated by the company. Meanwhile, its SEC filings are consolidated filings that are audited by KPMG. This author is using an age old short selling modus operandi of telling readers to assume the SAIC filings are correct, while the SEC filings are wrong.
Of course this makes little sense, as the SAIC filings are not used by any one for financial purposes, while the SEC filings are used exactly for financial purposes while being audited by KPMG for reliance by the investment community.
Summary
This report is nothing new. It uses an age old SAIC versus SEC filings argument as its base, which is very different than Muddy Water and its recent successes. The CBEH provides no customer or supplier checks of any kind, when I would argue-- given the high profile nature of CBEH’s relationships-- this should have been provided as evidence. The fact that someone went to this much trouble and could not debunk CBEH’s customers, suppliers or sales actually gives me slightly more confidence on this topic. I think the timing of this report near a successful CCME report has given it too much credence.
The company has initiated an internal review. In my opinion, this may lead to sell-side analyst suspensions until the review is complete. I believe that so long as KPMG remains on as the auditor, CBEH will enjoy price recovery in the short term. I think it is very early in this process for CBEH and I can’t predict the future, though I do believe this specific short seller report is very weak. It does not provide real investigation or ground work in China, but rather relies solely on SAIC filings that we know are not for financial or valuation purposes.
I have a small position in the company and I am eager to see how it plays out.
Disclosure: I am long CBEH.
I am also in! I'll hope I didn't make 'again' a stupid conclusion! this seems me a great manipulation of a short interestgroup! who the hell invented 'short interest'? so stupid
UPDATE! Lettre for shareholders from cbeh!
check http://content.stockpr.com/chinaintegratedenergyinc/media/86d3ac41ef560dbee711de68b3bb816b.pdf
whas it a false plan of short-interest funds? could that be possible?
what do you think about this pr?
yep, cbeh isn't mentioned anymore in HC International
last week they cbeh had a roadshow in US...
but what says KPMG?????
Statement of CBEH!
Mr. Gao Xincheng, CEO of China Integrated Energy said, "We are now pleased to have KPMG, an experienced and very qualified firm, complete the audit of the company's fourth quarter and full year 2010 financial results and internal controls. We will provide a detailed explanation to address the negative research report issued earlier today through a letter to our shareholders. We are committed to sound corporate governance and internal controls as we continuously strive to maintain our financial integrity."
http://ir.stockpr.com/chinaintegratedenergyinc/press-releases/detail/643
so, it seems you are convinced about the allegations write down in the report?
I can tell you I just sell 90% of all my shares
fucking casino capitalism...
but I find it strange that the autor of the report doesn't want to give his name...
so, it seems you are convinced about the allegations write down in the report?
I can tell you I just sell 90% of all my shares
fucking casino capitalism...
but I find it strange that the autor of the report doesn't want to give his name...
10-k fillings are in by SEC! already almost +10% after market-close!!
Rodman and Renshaw gives today a new target of 12,50$
We believe the stock's recent weakness is in sympathy with other small cap China names that are under auditor and 10K / 10Q filing related scrutiny. We believe pressure should abate once the company files its 2010 10K with the SEC. We expect this to happen by March 15, 2011.
FY11 Guidance: Management is now guiding for revenue and earnings of $588.1 MM and $72.2 MM for full year 2011, representing 34% growth in both top-line and bottom-line.
Revising 1Q11 Estimates: We are now expecting CBEH to generate top-line, bottom-line, and diluted EPS of $124.5 MM, $15.0 MM, and $0.29, respectively. For the full year numbers, our projections are in line with the company's guidance, with $587.5 MM in revenue, $72.9 MM in earnings, and $1.41 in diluted EPS.
Valuation: At current levels CBEH is trading at a P/E multiple of ~4.0x to our FY11 earnings estimates. We maintain our Market Outperform rating and highlight CBEH as a vehicle to participate in China's increasing energy consumption. At our PT of $12.50, CBEH will be trading at ~8.9x FY11 earnings, still significantly lower than its peer group.
http://www.fixyou.co.uk/tracker_details.php?s=CBEH&analysts=1
well, it seems we're all together in a dark space... is it a strategy of some shortinterest-butheads to create negative sentiments on chinese small caps?
now there is a rapport with disaster allegations against cbeh... but the writer doesn't want to give his name... what kind of bullshit is that?
I stay cool, wont panic (but I do) and hopes this is just a scarry nightmare
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/china-integrated-energy-cbeh-latest-alleged-chinese-fraud-true-value-076share?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+zerohedge%2Ffeed+%28zero+hedge+-+on+a+long+enough+timeline%2C+the+survival+rate+for+everyone+drops+to+zero%29
what? whats going on????? can anybody tell me what happen? anybody has an overview how many short-interest there is?
of course I didn't sell! Panic is not our friend, neather our teacher. I still believe in cbeh! my average is 5,97$... I see this is as a longterm investment
KPMG is auditor since January, last week they presented very good results
this is very bad for all chinese small caps... this thing will go very deep and this whole story means that china small caps stays negative for at least a month
Highest Short Interest
CCME China MediaExpress 1.0 days 74.46%
http://www.fixyou.co.uk/index.php
the shorts will make big money!! thats for sure
are there still many shorters on work?
thats a good decision, I also buyed some more shares last Friday
I think we gonna see a steady climb next months.
hopefully they find a solution for the nucleair problems in Japan... this could cause an enormous problem for the whole world
wonder what we gonna see Monday afters market close!
what happened today?
are we the only two fans of cbeh? my goodness, seems sentiments on stock exchanges are more important than facts...
Roth Capital gives a new target: 8 dollar
yeah, you're completely right. everything is in fact dark red! that was a long time ago. too many bad economic news