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.
There are so many millions of Americans (and the population of all nations) with common psychological disorders like Borderline that its a great tool to recognize those features when dealing with some folks. Can make a world of difference. Also makes for a good analogy to stock psychology.
As helpful as DSMIV is, dealing with people who have these symptoms helps to bring the explanations/criteria to life.
For example, I have assessed Cheng Zheng as having Narcissistic personality disorder with the Unprincipled narcissist subtype - including antisocial features. A charlatan - is a fraudulent, exploitative, deceptive and unscrupulous individual. The ibox used to detail this and I later removed it to make room for new facts emerging.
See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder
-Andrew
CBBD - 10-K/A --
http://secfilings.nasdaq.com/filingFrameset.asp?FileName=0001140361%2D11%2D024839%2Etxt&FilePath=%5C2011%5C05%5C04%5C&CoName=YOU+ON+DEMAND+HOLDINGS%2C+INC%2E&FormType=10%2DK%2FA&RcvdDate=5%2F4%2F2011&pdf=
I'll go into my thesis on CBBD at some length on a day when everything has cooled off a bit..
-Andrew
Chris, thanks.
Actually the "splitting" phenomena associated with borderline personality disorder is rather on point when it comes to perceptions of CCME.
It's probably grey, i.e. a viable, vibrant, healthy underlying business generating many tens of millions of dollars with also some shadiness and/or some fraud or misallocations, overstatement of buses, non-specificty leading to misunderstandings, and other issues.
Yet the borderline is unable to handle grey area. Things have to be black or white, there is no in between.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology)
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borderline_personality_disorder
-Andrew
I am receiving multiple private messages about my feelings on what has happened. To answer, let me take you back to my message dated Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:59:11 PM (not long after the CCME halt and related news (which works as an analogy, given that it addresses just one stock in just one board instead of multiple stocks in a medley board):
Red Flags and Dissent Posting Area on I-Box for boards on specific stocks
This is exactly the quality of post that meets what I recently defined as "peer-reviewed dissent" i.e. a short opinion. Frankly iHub policy should have this available in the iBox for all SEC reporting securities under discussion.
For example, I would like to add a reference to Rato's post to the iBox. I left area for two other quality posts. Send nominations to Moderator or an Assistant Moderator. Mods should make efforts to be fair in the subjective area of evaluation.
Note: I am deliberately not using the word "short" or "long"; this is not the "Short Box". The area is to give some opportunity to reference red flags, i.e. things to consider that are question marks that are unique and specific to the company. This will also help people who trade evaluate the company both ways and provide info useful in calculating whether to hedge.
Not a one-liner like Seasaw or Don Monfort would write, and not a list of thoughtless bashing, but a qualitatively well- written thoughtful expression that names red flags and discusses issues with the company by someone who has been posting for quite a while like Rato. (Previous sentence is not a sentence, but you get the point).
This may not be popular, certainly not before recent events, but it is healthy to have a marketplace of ideas and would set this board head and shoulders above others.
I am willing to post other stay away/ red flag arguments too if they are of this quality, comprehensive and well structured. We have plenty of long arguments on a stock. A dissent area also signals a company that pays attention what problems longs take seriously. This is healthy for a company that cares about shareholders.
Those who might not like this can look at everything else on the ibox instead. As the Supreme Court held in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) "Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes". In this case a man was arrested in a courthouse for wearing a shirt that said, "F*ck the Draft" (except there was no "*" for the letter u).
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=15
So I am asking your support to extend leeway here to add the post and I'll leave it to Majik to figure out how to make the area look nice. If there's an uproar, ask Brrp and I'll abide by his ruling as he is the Moderator and, as an Assistant, I am at his service.
-Andrew
Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61037408&txt2find=ibox
Here is what I was then responding to:
ratobranco
Share
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:58:10 PM
Re: grimreaper post# 25711 Post # of 30436
CCME - thanks. I found MW's COKE argument very persuasive, and was also troubled by the fact that none of the main media buyers for companies CCME claims to represent knew who CCME was. (Of course, Ping's report was supposed to have fixed that problem, but the rigor and reliability of her report is obviously up in the air right now, at least until we hear further information on why both Deloitte and Jacky resigned).
I was also very troubled by CCME's initial response to Citron and the subsequent response to MW. I felt the company was just very lazy in how they handled the situation. It was clear from the poor quality of both responses that they didn't really care much about what was happening.
Another red flag was the failed buyback. A lot of us fought through the first bear raid in September thinking that the company had our backs. I remember talking to a hedge fund manager who was freaking out and thinking that they were not buying shares back, and I was saying, "don't worry, I'm telling you, they are in there right now at 8.00 on the bid buying back." Of course, they weren't buying anything back.
Another huge red flag was the Ou Wen Lin sale to Jacky. The sale involved just enough shares to get Lin below the 5% reporting threshold. A very dishonest, deceptive, dirty move on the part of the company and the insiders. Given the amount of money involved (more than you would think Jacky has in the bank), the likelihood of some kind of fraud in terms of misappropriation of money was/is very high. My personal theory is that they just made up the form 4 indicating Jacky's purchase out of whole cloth. Lin probably dumped all of the shares to the market, rather than selling some to the market and some to Jacky.
Fernando has argued that because of the exercise of the Starr warrants, they were already below the 5% reporting threshold. Even if that's right, what matters is where they thought they were at before the sale, and per the filings, they didn't think they were below the reporting threshold.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1399067/000114420410066806/v205736_sc13da.htm
Notice that in the above filing, put out after the sale, they listed 1.803MM shares beneficially owned by Lin, and they represented that amount as 4.89% of outstanding shares. Thus the total shares that they believed to be oustanding at the time was 1.803MM/.0489 = 36.87MM. Add back the 100K shares sold to the 1.803MM shares and then divide by 36.87MM and you get 5.16%. So they thought they were at 5.16%, above the threshold, prior to the sale. The sale was concocted to get them down to 4.89%, so they could dump the rest without us knowing. And that's exactly what the Lins did.
THEN, to make matters worse, after the mysterious Jacky purchase, you had the flurry of PR's that came in. Dividend announcement, SWITOW announcement, etc. All in like two weeks at the end of December. Like clockwork, you had the t-trades, indicating Lin's sales. Those PR's were just a stunt to help Lin get out at the best possible price. Not immediate evidence of fraud, but definitely very shady, and an indication that you want to stay away from this management team.
Also, after some research, I thought the Citron "Shanghai Apollo" argument was very strong. He was right, it's a very small operation. Pathetic almost. If CCME were really a big time player in the Chinese advertising market, then why would their relationship with Shanghai Apollo be the best relationship they could present to us? They presented Shanghai Apollo to us IMO b/c they actually do business with Shanghai Apollo. The real part of their business involves advertising for local hotels and restaurants to low-end "greyhound" riders. I'm sure Shanghai Apollo is somehow involved in that component. Everything else, i.e., "Coke", "L'oreal", etc., is probably just part of the fraudulent IR efforts.
Finally, the biggest reason for my change of views was the fact that the SPAC made absolutely no economic sense from the founders' perspective. The company sold shares for 2 times earnings, despite having a very healthy cash balance and no real capex plans (they haven't engaged in any capex for the entire time they've been public!). That sort of thing only happens in the world of fairy tales. Nobody sells a company of the caliber that CCME claimed to be for two times earnings in some shady, back-door SPAC.
A lot of people, especially on this board, didn't take this argument seriously. People just blew it off--and to their own peril. When you buy a company from the person that founded it, you better understand how that person benefits by selling it to you at the given price. Otherwise, the joke is on you.
If the numbers were true, then Zheng Cheng didn't benefit at all. He got ripped off. Why would he rip himself off to benefit us?
Even more problematic is that all of the money taken in from the SPAC went directly to Zheng Cheng. So rather than focusing on bringing in money for this booming business, which supposedly offered all this opportunity for growth, he was focused on taking the money in for himself, i.e., on "cashing out." Never a good sign.
In retrospect, I think the key lessons for people here who got their @sses handed to them in this stock is as follows: (1) people should make an effort to entertain the opposing viewpoint, and never write off arguments simply because they come from the other side, and (2) don't buy anything that sounds to good to be true UNLESS you understand why it is too good to be true. If the market, which is governed by short term emotion, offers you a price that is "too good to be true", then take it. The market messes up all the time, the odds that you are the smarter one is very high. But if the founder of a company wants to sell you something at a price that is just "too good to be true", get the hell out of dodge ASAP. The joke is on you.
Another good lesson is this: call a spade a spade, and acknowledge quality work when it is done. Some may not like MW, or Citron. Personally, I don't much like Left. Block is OK, but Left can be irritating. OK, fine. I also don't like giddy, naive, ultra-positive longs, especially the ones that are hell bent on telling me how I am morally obligated to rush out and buy whatever junk they own, and the ones (like some on this board) that get catty and cranky whenever you express a viewpoint that runs counter to their self-interested pumpage.
Doesn't matter though. What matters is how strong the arguments are, not on who puts them forward.
cfgjr:
I know you were not suggesting I had. Just removing any appearance that I had to any third party.
-Andrew
I am receiving multiple private messages about my feelings on what has happened. To answer, let me take you back to my message dated Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:59:11 PM (not long after the CCME halt and related news (which works as an analogy, given that it addresses just one stock in just one board instead of multiple stocks in a medley board):
Red Flags and Dissent Posting Area on I-Box for boards on specific stocks
This is exactly the quality of post that meets what I recently defined as "peer-reviewed dissent" i.e. a short opinion. Frankly iHub policy should have this available in the iBox for all SEC reporting securities under discussion.
For example, I would like to add a reference to Rato's post to the iBox. I left area for two other quality posts. Send nominations to Moderator or an Assistant Moderator. Mods should make efforts to be fair in the subjective area of evaluation.
Note: I am deliberately not using the word "short" or "long"; this is not the "Short Box". The area is to give some opportunity to reference red flags, i.e. things to consider that are question marks that are unique and specific to the company. This will also help people who trade evaluate the company both ways and provide info useful in calculating whether to hedge.
Not a one-liner like Seasaw or Don Monfort would write, and not a list of thoughtless bashing, but a qualitatively well- written thoughtful expression that names red flags and discusses issues with the company by someone who has been posting for quite a while like Rato. (Previous sentence is not a sentence, but you get the point).
This may not be popular, certainly not before recent events, but it is healthy to have a marketplace of ideas and would set this board head and shoulders above others.
I am willing to post other stay away/ red flag arguments too if they are of this quality, comprehensive and well structured. We have plenty of long arguments on a stock. A dissent area also signals a company that pays attention what problems longs take seriously. This is healthy for a company that cares about shareholders.
Those who might not like this can look at everything else on the ibox instead. As the Supreme Court held in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) "Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes". In this case a man was arrested in a courthouse for wearing a shirt that said, "F*ck the Draft" (except there was no "*" for the letter u).
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=15
So I am asking your support to extend leeway here to add the post and I'll leave it to Majik to figure out how to make the area look nice. If there's an uproar, ask Brrp and I'll abide by his ruling as he is the Moderator and, as an Assistant, I am at his service.
-Andrew
Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61037408&txt2find=ibox
Here is what I was then responding to:
ratobranco
Share
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:58:10 PM
Re: grimreaper post# 25711 Post # of 30436
CCME - thanks. I found MW's COKE argument very persuasive, and was also troubled by the fact that none of the main media buyers for companies CCME claims to represent knew who CCME was. (Of course, Ping's report was supposed to have fixed that problem, but the rigor and reliability of her report is obviously up in the air right now, at least until we hear further information on why both Deloitte and Jacky resigned).
I was also very troubled by CCME's initial response to Citron and the subsequent response to MW. I felt the company was just very lazy in how they handled the situation. It was clear from the poor quality of both responses that they didn't really care much about what was happening.
Another red flag was the failed buyback. A lot of us fought through the first bear raid in September thinking that the company had our backs. I remember talking to a hedge fund manager who was freaking out and thinking that they were not buying shares back, and I was saying, "don't worry, I'm telling you, they are in there right now at 8.00 on the bid buying back." Of course, they weren't buying anything back.
Another huge red flag was the Ou Wen Lin sale to Jacky. The sale involved just enough shares to get Lin below the 5% reporting threshold. A very dishonest, deceptive, dirty move on the part of the company and the insiders. Given the amount of money involved (more than you would think Jacky has in the bank), the likelihood of some kind of fraud in terms of misappropriation of money was/is very high. My personal theory is that they just made up the form 4 indicating Jacky's purchase out of whole cloth. Lin probably dumped all of the shares to the market, rather than selling some to the market and some to Jacky.
Fernando has argued that because of the exercise of the Starr warrants, they were already below the 5% reporting threshold. Even if that's right, what matters is where they thought they were at before the sale, and per the filings, they didn't think they were below the reporting threshold.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1399067/000114420410066806/v205736_sc13da.htm
Notice that in the above filing, put out after the sale, they listed 1.803MM shares beneficially owned by Lin, and they represented that amount as 4.89% of outstanding shares. Thus the total shares that they believed to be oustanding at the time was 1.803MM/.0489 = 36.87MM. Add back the 100K shares sold to the 1.803MM shares and then divide by 36.87MM and you get 5.16%. So they thought they were at 5.16%, above the threshold, prior to the sale. The sale was concocted to get them down to 4.89%, so they could dump the rest without us knowing. And that's exactly what the Lins did.
THEN, to make matters worse, after the mysterious Jacky purchase, you had the flurry of PR's that came in. Dividend announcement, SWITOW announcement, etc. All in like two weeks at the end of December. Like clockwork, you had the t-trades, indicating Lin's sales. Those PR's were just a stunt to help Lin get out at the best possible price. Not immediate evidence of fraud, but definitely very shady, and an indication that you want to stay away from this management team.
Also, after some research, I thought the Citron "Shanghai Apollo" argument was very strong. He was right, it's a very small operation. Pathetic almost. If CCME were really a big time player in the Chinese advertising market, then why would their relationship with Shanghai Apollo be the best relationship they could present to us? They presented Shanghai Apollo to us IMO b/c they actually do business with Shanghai Apollo. The real part of their business involves advertising for local hotels and restaurants to low-end "greyhound" riders. I'm sure Shanghai Apollo is somehow involved in that component. Everything else, i.e., "Coke", "L'oreal", etc., is probably just part of the fraudulent IR efforts.
Finally, the biggest reason for my change of views was the fact that the SPAC made absolutely no economic sense from the founders' perspective. The company sold shares for 2 times earnings, despite having a very healthy cash balance and no real capex plans (they haven't engaged in any capex for the entire time they've been public!). That sort of thing only happens in the world of fairy tales. Nobody sells a company of the caliber that CCME claimed to be for two times earnings in some shady, back-door SPAC.
A lot of people, especially on this board, didn't take this argument seriously. People just blew it off--and to their own peril. When you buy a company from the person that founded it, you better understand how that person benefits by selling it to you at the given price. Otherwise, the joke is on you.
If the numbers were true, then Zheng Cheng didn't benefit at all. He got ripped off. Why would he rip himself off to benefit us?
Even more problematic is that all of the money taken in from the SPAC went directly to Zheng Cheng. So rather than focusing on bringing in money for this booming business, which supposedly offered all this opportunity for growth, he was focused on taking the money in for himself, i.e., on "cashing out." Never a good sign.
In retrospect, I think the key lessons for people here who got their @sses handed to them in this stock is as follows: (1) people should make an effort to entertain the opposing viewpoint, and never write off arguments simply because they come from the other side, and (2) don't buy anything that sounds to good to be true UNLESS you understand why it is too good to be true. If the market, which is governed by short term emotion, offers you a price that is "too good to be true", then take it. The market messes up all the time, the odds that you are the smarter one is very high. But if the founder of a company wants to sell you something at a price that is just "too good to be true", get the hell out of dodge ASAP. The joke is on you.
Another good lesson is this: call a spade a spade, and acknowledge quality work when it is done. Some may not like MW, or Citron. Personally, I don't much like Left. Block is OK, but Left can be irritating. OK, fine. I also don't like giddy, naive, ultra-positive longs, especially the ones that are hell bent on telling me how I am morally obligated to rush out and buy whatever junk they own, and the ones (like some on this board) that get catty and cranky whenever you express a viewpoint that runs counter to their self-interested pumpage.
Doesn't matter though. What matters is how strong the arguments are, not on who puts them forward.
I am receiving multiple private messages about my feelings on what has happened. To answer, let me take you back to my message dated Wednesday, March 16, 2011 8:59:11 PM (not long after the CCME halt and related news:
Red Flags and Dissent Posting Area on I-Box
This is exactly the quality of post that meets what I recently defined as "peer-reviewed dissent" i.e. a short opinion. Frankly iHub policy should have this available in the iBox for all SEC reporting securities under discussion.
For example, I would like to add a reference to Rato's post to the iBox. I left area for two other quality posts. Send nominations to Moderator or an Assistant Moderator. Mods should make efforts to be fair in the subjective area of evaluation.
Note: I am deliberately not using the word "short" or "long"; this is not the "Short Box". The area is to give some opportunity to reference red flags, i.e. things to consider that are question marks that are unique and specific to the company. This will also help people who trade evaluate the company both ways and provide info useful in calculating whether to hedge.
Not a one-liner like Seasaw or Don Monfort would write, and not a list of thoughtless bashing, but a qualitatively well- written thoughtful expression that names red flags and discusses issues with the company by someone who has been posting for quite a while like Rato. (Previous sentence is not a sentence, but you get the point).
This may not be popular, certainly not before recent events, but it is healthy to have a marketplace of ideas and would set this board head and shoulders above others.
I am willing to post other stay away/ red flag arguments too if they are of this quality, comprehensive and well structured. We have plenty of long arguments on a stock. A dissent area also signals a company that pays attention what problems longs take seriously. This is healthy for a company that cares about shareholders.
Those who might not like this can look at everything else on the ibox instead. As the Supreme Court held in Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) "Those in the Los Angeles courthouse could effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes". In this case a man was arrested in a courthouse for wearing a shirt that said, "F*ck the Draft" (except there was no "*" for the letter u).
Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=403&invol=15
So I am asking your support to extend leeway here to add the post and I'll leave it to Majik to figure out how to make the area look nice. If there's an uproar, ask Brrp and I'll abide by his ruling as he is the Moderator and, as an Assistant, I am at his service.
-Andrew
Source: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61037408&txt2find=ibox
Here is what I was then responding to:
ratobranco
Share
Wednesday, March 16, 2011 6:58:10 PM
Re: grimreaper post# 25711 Post # of 30436
CCME - thanks. I found MW's COKE argument very persuasive, and was also troubled by the fact that none of the main media buyers for companies CCME claims to represent knew who CCME was. (Of course, Ping's report was supposed to have fixed that problem, but the rigor and reliability of her report is obviously up in the air right now, at least until we hear further information on why both Deloitte and Jacky resigned).
I was also very troubled by CCME's initial response to Citron and the subsequent response to MW. I felt the company was just very lazy in how they handled the situation. It was clear from the poor quality of both responses that they didn't really care much about what was happening.
Another red flag was the failed buyback. A lot of us fought through the first bear raid in September thinking that the company had our backs. I remember talking to a hedge fund manager who was freaking out and thinking that they were not buying shares back, and I was saying, "don't worry, I'm telling you, they are in there right now at 8.00 on the bid buying back." Of course, they weren't buying anything back.
Another huge red flag was the Ou Wen Lin sale to Jacky. The sale involved just enough shares to get Lin below the 5% reporting threshold. A very dishonest, deceptive, dirty move on the part of the company and the insiders. Given the amount of money involved (more than you would think Jacky has in the bank), the likelihood of some kind of fraud in terms of misappropriation of money was/is very high. My personal theory is that they just made up the form 4 indicating Jacky's purchase out of whole cloth. Lin probably dumped all of the shares to the market, rather than selling some to the market and some to Jacky.
Fernando has argued that because of the exercise of the Starr warrants, they were already below the 5% reporting threshold. Even if that's right, what matters is where they thought they were at before the sale, and per the filings, they didn't think they were below the reporting threshold.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1399067/000114420410066806/v205736_sc13da.htm
Notice that in the above filing, put out after the sale, they listed 1.803MM shares beneficially owned by Lin, and they represented that amount as 4.89% of outstanding shares. Thus the total shares that they believed to be oustanding at the time was 1.803MM/.0489 = 36.87MM. Add back the 100K shares sold to the 1.803MM shares and then divide by 36.87MM and you get 5.16%. So they thought they were at 5.16%, above the threshold, prior to the sale. The sale was concocted to get them down to 4.89%, so they could dump the rest without us knowing. And that's exactly what the Lins did.
THEN, to make matters worse, after the mysterious Jacky purchase, you had the flurry of PR's that came in. Dividend announcement, SWITOW announcement, etc. All in like two weeks at the end of December. Like clockwork, you had the t-trades, indicating Lin's sales. Those PR's were just a stunt to help Lin get out at the best possible price. Not immediate evidence of fraud, but definitely very shady, and an indication that you want to stay away from this management team.
Also, after some research, I thought the Citron "Shanghai Apollo" argument was very strong. He was right, it's a very small operation. Pathetic almost. If CCME were really a big time player in the Chinese advertising market, then why would their relationship with Shanghai Apollo be the best relationship they could present to us? They presented Shanghai Apollo to us IMO b/c they actually do business with Shanghai Apollo. The real part of their business involves advertising for local hotels and restaurants to low-end "greyhound" riders. I'm sure Shanghai Apollo is somehow involved in that component. Everything else, i.e., "Coke", "L'oreal", etc., is probably just part of the fraudulent IR efforts.
Finally, the biggest reason for my change of views was the fact that the SPAC made absolutely no economic sense from the founders' perspective. The company sold shares for 2 times earnings, despite having a very healthy cash balance and no real capex plans (they haven't engaged in any capex for the entire time they've been public!). That sort of thing only happens in the world of fairy tales. Nobody sells a company of the caliber that CCME claimed to be for two times earnings in some shady, back-door SPAC.
A lot of people, especially on this board, didn't take this argument seriously. People just blew it off--and to their own peril. When you buy a company from the person that founded it, you better understand how that person benefits by selling it to you at the given price. Otherwise, the joke is on you.
If the numbers were true, then Zheng Cheng didn't benefit at all. He got ripped off. Why would he rip himself off to benefit us?
Even more problematic is that all of the money taken in from the SPAC went directly to Zheng Cheng. So rather than focusing on bringing in money for this booming business, which supposedly offered all this opportunity for growth, he was focused on taking the money in for himself, i.e., on "cashing out." Never a good sign.
In retrospect, I think the key lessons for people here who got their @sses handed to them in this stock is as follows: (1) people should make an effort to entertain the opposing viewpoint, and never write off arguments simply because they come from the other side, and (2) don't buy anything that sounds to good to be true UNLESS you understand why it is too good to be true. If the market, which is governed by short term emotion, offers you a price that is "too good to be true", then take it. The market messes up all the time, the odds that you are the smarter one is very high. But if the founder of a company wants to sell you something at a price that is just "too good to be true", get the hell out of dodge ASAP. The joke is on you.
Another good lesson is this: call a spade a spade, and acknowledge quality work when it is done. Some may not like MW, or Citron. Personally, I don't much like Left. Block is OK, but Left can be irritating. OK, fine. I also don't like giddy, naive, ultra-positive longs, especially the ones that are hell bent on telling me how I am morally obligated to rush out and buy whatever junk they own, and the ones (like some on this board) that get catty and cranky whenever you express a viewpoint that runs counter to their self-interested pumpage.
Doesn't matter though. What matters is how strong the arguments are, not on who puts them forward.
cfgjr:
Let me be exceptionally clear that I have not deleted your messages.
-Andrew
Chris: I'm sorry to hear two of your presumably substantive, non-vulgar, on topic posts were deleted. I hope you have not found any issues on the CCME board since whenever I started actively revamping the ibox.
-Andrew
"free speech" and "China" -- oil and water or a perfect combination....
Maybe in three generations?
CCCL has very low short interest. Rather distinct from companies being targeted in the sector.
I like the CCCL IR firm.
Lots of resistance near 5. Good base forming.
I like CCCL.
It's about as coincidental as JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley jointly underwriting a company and having offices nearby their lawyers all in Manhattan.
-Andrew
Playa55:
Dipstick55's message about the call is on the CCME ihub board here:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=61797585
There is a thread that comes with it including various replies.
-Andrew
Chris:
Are you speaking of the CCME Board? Please clarify the ambiguity.
-Andrew
It is interesting to watch...when the news on a particular stock was positive, the board was open to all. Once the reality hits in and negative news emerged it went straight to the Pink Sheet mindset - pumpers only.
Dipstick55:
Your observation about obtaining counsel beyond Loeb is outstanding. Their involvement in the RTO sector does bias them and does lead to a perception that their findings have some degree of taint.
-Andrew
cfgjr:
I was away nearly all of yesterday. When I logged in early this morning, I was rather surprised to see what happened in the preceding 12 hours or so here and on the CGS board. I do not know what started it, have not seen messages that may be involved, and I hope everyone can get past whatever did happen so we can get back to discussing securities.
I can confirm it's not my choice and no one asked me. But, again, it's not up to me.
I hope the experience here at the CCME board remains as comfortable for everyone and I will continue to put the time in to ensure that a constructive discussion of the short and long perspectives of CCME takes place.
With some luck CCME will come through on its latest efforts with Piper/PWC and this will mark a turning point in the entire sector.
-Andrew
focus:
There are detailed messages by me on this board (for those of you just tuning in, this is the CCME board), that discuss the reasons why a message may be deleted. This CCME board is very open to short and long views. Read the ibox for example.
Any message removed would be because of something else about the message, i.e. a personal attack, vulgarity, off topic, etc. The most likely reason for a removal was that a message is off topic.
Few messages are removed on the CCME board. Sometimes removal is by ihub admins, which are people higher up than the moderator or the assistant moderators of a particular board.
I strongly encourage anyone who ever experiences a message deletion to ask a moderator for a review, to recognize there are multiple moderators to help, and to repost the message with the offending portion removed.
Example:
"CCME management is terrible. They do not even update their website with new information. The translations are terrible. F**K lawyers."
The above example may be removed on the basis of vulgarity.
If so, simply repost as follows:
"CCME management is terrible. They do not even update their website with new information. The translations are terrible."
-Andrew
(in my capacity as an Assistant Moderator)
JB, you are right on. That's how many have felt about DTT.
WCTBILLS:
Perhaps you should add this commentary to your report at your Xanga page or reference this message by you for further discussion. BTW, your reasoning for the approximate date makes some sense.
-Andrew
China Stocks - Russell Flannery - Forbes
http://blogs.forbes.com/russellflannery/2011/05/05/lujiazui-breakfast-news-and-views-about-china-stocks-may-5/
How much in the US bank account?
Interesting question-- what is the extent of the US assets under discussion. The CCME motion papers said there was just one bank account in the US. Is that the one they pay fees to US lawyers, certain other professional fees, Membership fees at 24 hour fitness, the YMCA, or wherever the company execs stay when they visit the US to ring a bell, or what? How much money is in that account? If it's truly significant in size, it could possibly reflect the anticipated 5-10% of net profit dividend intended to have been paid to shareholders had the BOD accepted the 2010 financials?
CCME Motion Papers Paragraph 12: "Plaintiff pointed to no transfers out of the Company’s one bank account in the United States that were not made in the ordinary course of business or were in any way
fraudulent."
-Andrew
CCME - "Communication and share realize brilliance!"
This retro-CCME moment is courtesy of Cheng Zheng. Source: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/about/president.php
-Andrew
Perhaps the best line is: "Communication and share realize brilliance!"
At least it has the word "share" in it...
Been there certainly since 2010. Apparently at CCME they don't really like to worry about silly things like dating messages from the CEO or updating the website, or ensuring that anything in Chinese is in English too so the website is faithfully balanced for all shareholders. CCME leaves you to think the message could be new. The 'amateur hour' drips with ambiguity.
Yet its a bridge between CCME and shareholders just like the CEO said...
-Andrew
And now some words from CCME's CEO, Cheng Zheng
(As we sit here today, halted, I cannot help but take great pride in the infrequently referenced words of Mr. Cheng Zheng, presumably via translator):
"Distinguished friends:
Welcome to the website of China MediaExpress. I hope that the website will be a window for you to understand China MediaExpress better and will be a bridge between us. On behalf of all staff of China MediaExpress, I would like to express my warm welcome to you and sincerely wish we would join hands together to create brilliance in our lives and careers.
I hereby extend my heartfelt thanks to those from all walks of life who have been offering their support and love for China MediaExpress to be designated as the exclusive inter-city bus TV media by China's Ministry of Transport.
China's fast booming economy brings huge market potential for media resources. China MediaExpress continues to extend its business scope to Beijing, Tianjin, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Shandong, Anhui, Fujian, Guangdong, Hubei, Sichuan and Chongqing by virtue of this development trend. We are creating a strategic branding of our company's services, whose core is radiating outwards and now includes the metropolitan area on the west coast of the Taiwan Straits, the Yangtze River Delta, the Pearl River Delta, Bohai-rim, and Southwest China.
Over years, we have been taking "rapidly expand value and serve clients with innovation" as our operation concept. While building our enterprise stronger and larger, we focus on the improvement of our services. From the innovation of programs and advertisements, the introduction of CTR--an independent authority as a supervisor to the customized advertisement broadcasting solutions, each endeavor is designed to help the clients make a breakthrough in the products and services, increase its brand value and explore potential market, which has been recognized and supported by our clients.
Communication and share realize brilliance! China MediaExpress is moving forward the higher target. We will work under the corporate spirit of "Inheriting, Developing, Enthusiastic and Humanity" with the slogan of "where there is an expressway, there is the innovation of our services" to work with you to create our better and more harmonious future!
President of China MediaExpress
Zheng Cheng
Source: http://www.ccme.tv/eng/about/president.php
Nothing better than: "Inheriting, Developing, Enthusiastic and Humanity", best slogan ever.
That investigation by Shapiro was prospective on behalf of shareholders, not on behalf of CCME.
cfgjr:
The allegations are used to justify a case being brought (without appearing frivolous while making specific allegations that satisfy federal rules about pleading fraud) during which the Judge can then order discovery into the company itself that goes well beyond the original claims by Block (which, depending on what's revealed, could become superfluous in light of potential evidence shared in discovery).
BTW, CCME could sue MW directly, etc. and get discovery too in a separate action if they are able to meet due process standards to commence such a suit, if they have a substantive claim, (and if they so desired).
-Andrew
All this discussion of Piper, DLA is going to get jealous.
Difference: CCME never issued this statement: "We are confident that this investigation will vindicate the company's financial disclosures to be accurate in all material respects."
ccme.tv website update: Marco Kung is now no longer listed on the ccme.tv website. Another sign of some kind of life at CCME or at least that CCME's lawyers are picking up slack for the 'Amateur Hour'.
Examples:
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/governance.php?section=committees
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/ir/governance.php?section=directors
http://www.ccme.tv/eng/about/management.php
-Andrew
I yield to Reganwould who deserves all credit. Thanks.
-Andrew
Reganwould: Thank you for posting legal case documents. Lines 8, 9 and 12 start to lay some foundation for what CCME's attorneys may well plan to argue and what may possibly even be the truth. They are to the point and a welcomed read for every CCME shareholder. This is the first time CCME expresses in a court-filed legal document that the claims against CCME are based on short sellers concocted anonymous self-serving allegations, and that Dong's resignation was also self-serving.
From Paragraph 8: "Plaintiff claims that the Company is a fraud. With minor exception, Plaintiff bases these serious allegations not on its own knowledge or investigation, but on the claims of others, most of whom are either anonymous bloggers, short sellers who stand to profit by driving down the stock price, or persons believed to be working in concert with short sellers. The minor exception noted above refers to Plaintiff’s quotation from the resignation letter of a former Company director. Those comments are entirely self-serving, however, coming as they do from Plaintiff’s designee on the Board and only days before the Complaint was filed."
-Andrew
By the way, on the issue of what language does Zheng Cheng speak, for whoever was saying someone here might be Cheng Zheng himself, check out line 7 in the motion papers from CCME's attorneys:
"Defendant Mr. Cheng is a citizen and resident of China and
does not speak English" (emphasis added)
-Andrew
Mr. Dipstick55:
Again, you are mistaken and replying seemingly impulsively on one or more hasty generalizations.
1) The grammar I spoke of was my own, not yours. See the message to which it replied for verification.
2) We both had the calibur of smarts to buy CCME so we both must be geniuses ;)
3) I did not delete multiple messages of yours today. (you pluralized)
4) If a message is ever deleted by me it's never personal even if addressed to me. It's just applying the message criteria and acting in my capacity as one of 5 (five) moderators. If you would like a message restored that you believe was deleted in error, simply write to one of the other four moderators promptly and ask them to take a look. They may or may not restore the message based on their good faith review. Every last moderator on this board can assist you in getting a further review. Such has yet to coe up wher eI am asked to review a deletion by another moderator, but anything is possible. See DTT withdrawing the 2009 signature as an example.
5) You are mistaking my action as an attorney with a duty to adhere to the rules of professional ethics whether or not I am representing someone else as somehow me acting as an attorney by or on behalf of anyone else such as you or this Board. Let me clarify your hasty assumption. I do not represent you or anyone posting on the Boards in any way. You, however, seem to express some kind of self-comparative feeling about attorneys which is your own business. These are very much off topic from the CCME discussion. These could possibly cause an otherwise relevant message to be deemed off topic. The cure (i.e. as in a "cure period"), is to post again without the extraneous information.
Thanks,
Andrew
(partially in my capacity as an assistant moderator as relates to part of #5 above)