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.
Chris:
I'm not saying the day count is any way definitive. Rather, it's mildly indicative yet still premised on certain assumptions like you name.
The discussion was just some kind of approximation/guessing exercise that could be used in contravention of assessments of percentage likelihood of fraud from days ago, as well as going forward this month. It's a bit like determining how a 'CCME fraud' option very soon to expire might be priced were such somehow in existence and actively trading. Likelihood of fraud would be a major factor in the price of such an option this particular month more than most.
Yes, the DLA Piper attorneys could be there, having found the fraud in the first two days, or even having had certain frauds admitted to them up front as part of their retainer, then staying there to assess how big or bad the fraud is, all the while working on behalf of Independent Directors, not the company or shareholders at all. As each potential instance of fraud is uncovered, if at all present, the lawyers may be assessing the proof of separation between the Independent Directors and any wrong doing, all to honor obligations of some Directors/Officers insurance policy to protect and defend the Independent Directors against reasonably likely or allegations of breach of fiduciary duty which were noticed to the insurer. The same analysis applies to PWC, except PWC reports solely to DLA Piper.
-Andrew
OK, so if on May 30, you will start to think positively, let's call the 30th the day you think a preponderance of the evidence weighs favorably to the company. Let's call this the day you think it's better than 50% likely CCME is legit.
Today is May 9, with no resignation, that would leave about 21 more days until May 30.
50/21=2.9 (roughly) plus there's been a few days already. Basically on a linear scale, the odds of semi-legitimacy go up 3% per day on this scale.
50/28 = 1.78 (if we started counting from the May 2 date).
Yeah, there's more of a parabolic increase as we get closer to the three week mark from the May 2, 2011, announcement.
It's probably more likely that May 2 through, say, May 16 is a total of 10%, let's say, as resignation that soon is not likely achievable. From May 17 through May 30 we'd see a dramatic increase in confidence snowballing forward from there.
Yep, we're reduced to pure speculation again to align and then subjectively speculate relative to a multitude of variables.
The last time a similar speculation was going on for CCME, it was the concept of DTT is at the end of the audit, they'd have resigned already if they'd found a major problem. That reasoning supported or enhanced reasoning for well more than ten million dollars to be invested into CCME in the week(s) leading up to the resignation.
It's like we're back counting Reg SHO days again...
-Andrew
CBBD - You on Demand (Formerly China Broadband) has been up in recent sessions, showing improved strength following its recent 10K. Company has US management including Shane McMahon (of the famous McMahon family).
-Andrew
WKBT - Short Interest:
56,224 shares short on April 15, 2011.
http://www.otcbb.com/asp/OTCE_Short_Interest_popup.asp?Symbol=WKBT&StlmtDt=04/15/2011
WEIKANG BIO TECH CO (WKBT) OTC Type: Other-OTC
Short Interest for April 15 2011
Short
Interest Percent
Change Average Daily
Share Volume Days to
Cover
56,224 3.60 65,120 1.00
-Andrew
US seeks Yuan rise. Article here.
-Andrew
About Xinyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd.
Xinyuan Real Estate Co., Ltd. (“Xinyuan”) (NYSE: XIN) is a developer of large scale, high quality residential real estate projects aimed at providing middle-income consumers with a comfortable and convenient community lifestyle. Xinyuan focuses on China’s Tier II cities, characterized as larger, more developed urban areas with above average GDP and population growth rates. Xinyuan has expanded its network to cover a total population of over 44.7 million people in seven strategically selected Tier II cities, comprising Hefei, Jinan, Kunshan, Suzhou, Zhengzhou, Xuzhou and Chengdu. Xinyuan is the first real estate developer from China to be listed on the New York Stock Exchange. For more information, please visit http://www.xyre.com
Top 10 China Stocks May 6 list here according to CNAanalyst.com.
Happy Mother's Day.
-Andrew
This Board is a great idea. There needs to be a couple of stocks to focus on in here, with some emphasis and there will start to be a following here.
-Andrew
Spinco:
Good post. That fantasy sounds as consistent with the facts as the explanations which incorporate maximum levels of fraud.
-Andrew
We all benefit from centralized online discussion, wherever it shall occur, where folks can bring, share, and reflect upon filings, time tables, theses, and due diligence, based on our individual training and experience, to there address subjects of common concern or curiosity falling within the subject matter range, in a comfortable atmosphere that ideally, IMHO, fosters a degree of amicable camaraderie, respect, and some sense of human connectivity. Such can be a valuable resource wherein to reflect, to speak, and to listen reasonably, comfortably, and fairly, while pursuing the worthy goals of profitable investments, profitable trades, and prudent decisions.
-Andrew
The iBox also notes:
"CCME Business Description: China MediaExpress, Holdings, Inc. [NASD: CCME] plays ads on video screens in 27,400 or 27,200 coach and intercity buses in China. "
There's a link to each number in a post-halt claim or release.
Such should never be a typo yet could be.
-Andrew
Shermadog:
I wrote much about CCME, but I never said management was cream of the crop, comparing it to top management the world over. It's not like anyone at CCME had intensive experience running publicly traded companies. You would be hard pressed to find even the most pumping posts from before the halt that will say management is top notch in anything other than conclusory analysis.
The experience of then CFO Jacky from PWC was lauded as positive and I certainly said that. We saw DTT Big Four as positive and experienced. Longs said the CEO built the company and had great experience from that. There were posts that the CEO did a good job of reaching out to the employees by a newsletter or magazine of some kind (that has yet to be translated to English and posted).
But we hardly heard that the management was like former BIDU management, US trained MBA's. We did hear from longs many complaints about the PR, that selection of Equity Group/Lena suggested CCME had less than stellar total management, i.e. the management selected and kept a representative many shareholders disliked.
Longs often said they liked Jacky, likely because he spoke English and was communicative with some of the shareholders. Also what was not to like when the news was good. The discussion was largely about the earnings and profit margins, the business model itself, the growth potential-- not the quality of management.
In fact, the only manager with publicly traded company experience of which I am aware is Marco Kung, and that was based on WUYI Pharma, and that company has only been traded in HK for a short time if I recall correctly.
The Dorothy Dong placement on the BOD was the only solidly experienced manager by US standards. Dong did not, however, manage the company. She was not even on the Audit Committee. She represented Starr's interests at occassional meetings. That seems to be the extent of what she did.
But all this discussion of the quality of management did not matter that much because CCME had already, by then, verified DTT 2009 earnings and Starr had done their DD and invested, placing Dong on the BOD too. The verifications by Darren and Ping were consistent with the business press releases. Again why doubt management's skills and acumen? The business was rather simple, even if incredibly lucrative. It did not necesarily take a Steve Jobs or a Dan Dimicco (Nucor) to run an ad subscription and placement service with monthly cd changes (even if throughout China on buses).
This is why shareholders were begging CCME to retain new and superior counsel, to eliminate Equity Group, to hire a superior PR firm (like FH), and to replace Jacky with someone who has meaningful US MBA + experience. Shareholders wanted CCME to enhance its advisor quality to ensure problems that come up or were alleged would be dealt with.
Well now CCME may begin to have some top level advisors if not third party inspectors. It's a start.
-Andrew
Whoever added the spreadsheet format to the ibox, thanks, exactly what needed doing.
-Andrew
Someone suggested on YMB that the here that language in a recent release saying ..."former majority shareholder..." somehow means CEO Zheng Cheng sold his shares (as if they noticed some revealing nuance in the release). A lot of us are familiar with this language from many past releases even before the major controversy. I'm just going to address the proposed issue here to put it to rest before it takes on some life of its own.
The press releases dating back nearly a year all say "...entity majority owned by CME'S former majority shareholder..." or the paragraph containing this language is left out.
Examples where the press release includes the "former majority shareholder" language includes:
2011: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/press/p110113.pdf
December 2010: http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20101216005686/en/China-MediaExpress-Holdings-Announces-Dividend-Policy
September 2010: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/pressContent.p...
July 2010: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/pressContent.php?press=100901
In other words, there is no change in ownership by CEO Zheng Cheng reflected by the above discussed language.
If he did sell without filing has yet to be determined. Could have happened.
-Andrew
The hiring of Piper could be nothing more than a legal step taken by Directors to ensure they are prepared to defend themselves against suits i.e. for breach of fiduciary duty. The Directors are charges with the responsibility to at least appear they went through the steps to investigate. There may be nothing positive for shareholders that comes of the Piper PWC retainer syllogism. It may amount to a high priced farce if stonewalling results.
On the other hand, even if hired by Directors, these independents may finally reveal for us what the issues and extent of the trouble is. It may be any percentage of overstatement, etc.
As Rato and Traderfan have pointed out, these investigations launched by the Directors in the China heavy short sector usually end up in resignation of the law firm and accounting firm due to stonewalling by the company. We can only hope the CEO will let the experts do their job unfettered.
So yes, this may not at all be for honest benefit of shareholders but rather just a dance for the Directors to appear independent fiduciaries with a known advance result.
However given that CCME is seeking to remain on NASDAQ and not just going dark or pink in the fastest possible path, perhaps the independent invesatigation could yield for shareholders a positive outcome.
-Andrew
China Treasuries Policy - We all saw the articles and summaries plus commentary a few days ago. Well I watched the entire John Williams President of the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank speech+ Q&A on CSPAN last night. Recommended watching for anyone seeking a macroeconomic fix while having a late dinner...
What was remarkable to me was that Williams went out of his way to opine the he does not see big risk of China changing the level of its holdings of U.S. Treasuries. When you talk to non-economists on Main street, and somehow get on to the topic of China, the perception that China will change direction and how the US will handle that is a major concern.
It was also nice to hear him also insist that the US has to address its ultimately unsustainable fiscal crisis.
One article: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-04/fed-s-williams-says-high-inflation-is-very-unlikely-as-commodities-ease.html
-Andrew
Thanks TrolleySnatcha. I'm looking forward to watching CCCL continue to perform and to demonstrate its uniqueness in comparison to some of the similarly sized geographic peers that also trade on the US markets.
-Andrew
Steven, thank you. Yeah, I'm hearing favorable things but this Board is not just for posting favorable or ambivalent things so if anyone has something bad to share, a question, red flag, anything at all, please let me know and please post as well. The short interest kind of says quite a lot when it comes to verifying this company compared to so many of the China Growth Stock peers.
4/15/2011 30,976 135,222 1.0000004/15/2011 30,976 135,222 1.000000
-Andrew
Dan, thanks. It will be interesting to be on one of those watch the paint dry kinds of boards in addition to the raucous pits of controversy like CCME.
-Andrew
Sample quote from SEC request:
"The Commission requests comment, on behalf of the Division, on the feasibility, benefits, and costs of the Consolidated Tape collecting and disseminating certain transaction marks. Specifically, Section 417(a)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Division to study the feasibility, benefits, and costs of conducting a voluntary pilot program in which public companies would agree to have all trades of their shares marked “long,” “short,” and/or “market maker short” (for the sell portion(s) of the trade), and “buy” and/or “buy to cover” (for the buy portion(s) of the trade) and reported in real time through the Consolidated Tape."
Sample quote from SEC request:
"The Commission requests comment, on behalf of the Division, on the feasibility, benefits, and costs of the Consolidated Tape collecting and disseminating certain transaction marks. Specifically, Section 417(a)(2)(B) of the Dodd-Frank Act requires the Division to study the feasibility, benefits, and costs of conducting a voluntary pilot program in which public companies would agree to have all trades of their shares marked “long,” “short,” and/or “market maker short” (for the sell portion(s) of the trade), and “buy” and/or “buy to cover” (for the buy portion(s) of the trade) and reported in real time through the Consolidated Tape."
Yes, you are right. What I was getting at is whether CCME cash was absconded with and given to Jacky to buy the shares, thereby prompting DTT to ask about that transaction (among other things), or would this be hidden in the yet uninspected bank records.
I should have been more clear in my question or comment.
-Andrew
Amazing! Whether anything results will be what matters though.
That memo seeking information is truly incredible.
Hopefully a crackdown will follow.
-Andrew
CCME - Michael, who would do that verification?
-Andrew
In regards to CCME, I definitely believe the purchase was real and was probably verified a long time ago.
CCME - And Jacky's purchase is something DTT could possibly have asked about, possibly, or is this too tangential for the DTT audit?
Surely NASDAQ will ask this question, right?
-Andrew
How iHub Works, China Boards and iHub - The flaw of iHub is that messages deleted solely because they are marginally off topic do not end up someplace visible. Meaning messages that are not vulgarity, personal attack, spam, woefully off topic, etc. still have underlying value. These should not be deleted from the system (unseen any longer anywhere) when I or any moderator delete them. Instead, they should go to one place and therefore be searchable on the ihub board. All China stocks could go to one such place. This would maximize expression while still allowing moderated conversation without anyone alleging suppression or control. Memory issues are not much of a concern here as clouds and memory are fairly modest and these messages are only a portion of the whole.
Also, I wish there were a way to fold in boards, kinda like shuffling cards. All China board posts could end up in one new additional unmoderated Board. This could be a clever application of some kind fro iHub.
There's a humorous analogy here to Taiwan and China... somewhere and whether there will be reunification. I hope so.
-Andrew
Gamma and friends:
Thanks for having me.
-Andrew
Hopefully CCME managers will have a lot more maturity about answering questions where they see them coming and wont feel as railroaded. The emotions should be removed from decisions to disclose at the last moment.
CCME knows what they are and are not sharing and where their issues are.
-Andrew
The flag in the ibox is a bit huge... :0>)
Since you raise the question, I'd like to take a moment to point out that Rick has also been nothing but a gentleman in discussing CCME both before and after the halt.
-Andrew
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=62457623&txt2find=gentleman
Overlaps between stocks or regions with common issues and other marginally tangential topics seem fit for this board to me particularly during the halt. One of these is the topic of how we ended up here and what dd we did do and what dd we did not do, and or what flags we saw or missed, as well as the system in which such analysis was performed, and how that can be made better or improved upon in the present or future.
This is stated broadly.
-Andrew
Excellent to know you have built a rapport with the attorney. Looking forward to any details.
-Andrew
The hearing is closed, considers private, proprietary non-public information, and if the hearing is in person, will most likely be lawyers. Cheng would be ill-advised to enter the US at this time IMHO.
Besides, the lawyers, I believe, have the option to go a paper route instead and not even meet in person. (Meaning appear in the form of briefs to the hearing panel, not in person through lawyers).
-Andrew
Derek_ops:
These companies could go through media buyers who then buy from CCME. A verification directly from a company can be difficult.
I believe they specified that China Unicom had a direct relationship. Verifying that would be interesting and maybe more achievable.
CCME did not want to reveal contacts because these points of contact could then disrupt the company's relationships. That's at the heart of the assault on CCME.
-Andrew
CCCL - I've taken the moment to reflect and have today taken on the additional responsibility of moderating the CCCL Board. It's fast and furious over there (kidding) so I'll see what it's like to be involved in a Board of a company that has a minuscule short position. :)
At some point I may pick brains for what you would like to see on that Board as some may go to that Board directly to gather information about CCCL.
-Andrew
CCCL - I've taken the moment to reflect and have today taken on the additional responsibility of moderating the CCCL Board. It's fast and furious over there (kidding) so I'll see what it's like to be involved in a Board of a company that has a minuscule short position. :)
At some point I may pick brains for what you would like to see on that Board as some may go to that Board directly to gather information about CCCL.
-Andrew
I have asked to moderate the fine discussion here and look forward to being of service to the community. At some point I'll fix the ibox and add some details.
This is a company in which I have a tiny position for the last three weeks or so. What I like about CCCL is that it's a China stock without the major controversy like that facing, say, CCME (where I've also spent a lot of time).
So welcome and thanks for coming.
-Andrew
Shermadog:
When there's some definitive news on CCME, the board will change dramatically one way or the other. Maybe it will have a positive effect on the sector too -- if CCME proves to break the trend and shows its strengths.
-Andrew