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.
Agree. They've been around for a while....but looked at their margins (public docs just became available with their IPO) and they've been at 65% for years and profitable. Also growing very fast still in Canada with their own cash flow. Maybe why stock more than doubled in first week of trading...
Been following CELH for a while...Initially short, but then went long once they became profitable. Impressed with their execution, despite doubts regarding European acquisition. Am very curious to see how they did in Q3. The upside in such a large, high margin industry is tremendous.
Been looking at another similar Organic Energy play going public next week: GURU.TO to trade on the TSE. Very similar product, higher margins (65%), huge market share in Canada (13%, bigger than rockstar). Starting to make inroads in California. Anyone know about this company?
Pretty impressive earnings report all around. Surprised they managed to pull out some earnings, without relying on Chinese partner. Odds of turning this into a virtuous cycle of growth and profitability has increased, IMO. Covered a portion of my short at open. Was surprised stock hasn't moved as a result. Looks like someone on the other side is selling into this news.
For me, question remains: once all these new distributors are online, how does product do with existing stores / existing SKUs. Do they need to rely on future distribution /SKU growth to maintain sales growth. Very surprised they didn't provide ANY data on this front in release or on call. The 41% convenience channel growth they keep referring to is inclusive of new stores opened. If number of new stores is up by more than 41%, that would imply lower sales per store. Also of concern and an indicator of velocity is Europe, which has seen little distribution growth, and as a result, has seen a decrease in sales (I know they say its because of new SKUs not being avail in Eurpope, but this only points to the need to keep rotating flavours to maintain sales, not sustainable long term).
But overall, pretty impressive that they managed to generate real earnings even while building out distribution. Never thought they could get this far. To be continued.
Does anyone care that CEO and CFO need more skin in the game than the combined $800k/year salaries and existing 750,000 stock options in order to take on the additional task of integrating Func?
Doesn't feel good that board had to "incent" management with $500,000 in actual stock (that's right, not options, but actual shares) and another 150,000 options each (total dilution 450,000 shares).
(See Nov 1 press release: https://dd7pmep5szm19.cloudfront.net/2285/0001213900-19-021839.pdf)
I can see the discussion with the board: "If you want us to stick around and integrate this money-losing, almost bankrupt, European distribution business that doesn't make sense for an energy drink maker (and was really just an excuse to raise more equity), you will have to make it worthwhile for us financially. We'll do our best, but this is not what we were hired for. We need more upside."
Not very hard to argue with someone that obviously knows nothing about the energy drink industry.
In the energy drink business, if you can't generate 60% GP margin, you are discounting your product abnormally. Anyone selling a can of water/sugar/caffeine that costs $0.40 at most for $2.50 retail and can't generate 60% gross margin is not selling its product without heavy discounting. Look at Monster's GP Margin = 60%. And this is down from the usual 65% it used to get before having to fend off Bang and others.
Celsius at 40% GP Margin means they are discounting more than the "normal" number of promos and the reason they are doing this is to keep their product in stores.
WRT Spins in SoCal to be specific, my analysis shows that latest 12 weeks shows much slower growth for CELH overall than last 52 weeks. And when you dig deeper (at SKU level), the remaining growth in latest 12 weeks comes mostly from the introduction of new flavours (which show 100%+ growth, to be sure, but again, novelty effect) whereas older SKUs tend to drop off after some time. Nothing conclusive, yet. Time will tell if word of mouth can sustain volume in same stores. But my initial read of the data suggests they will need to put more money to build loyalty and not rely on novelty/pipeline fill/new listings for sales volume.
There's a reason only three players have 95% of the energy drink market. Its hard to build a brand.
Same Store Sales is all that counts...This is what I will be looking for in the upcoming earnings release. Increasing the number of stores means nothing if sales (after pipeline fill) don't follow through.
This will be the last opportunity to see the company's numbers in a clean YoY manner (Func closed in October, so hopefully will not introduce any noise in the reported Sept 30 numbers). After this quarter, it will take another year to see comparable numbers....unless management volunteers these numbers in separate tables.
My read of nielsens and spins retailer data shows that, in some geographies, CELH does well for the first few months after being introduced (novelty effect, perhaps) but then slows down if not supported with heavy discounting. If you have to keep pushing the snowball to make it grow, you get tired very quickly (or run out of money before springtime comes). If you can get gravity to do most of the work (natural consumer pull), then you are golden. Bang is an example of a brand with a snowball on a very steep hill. Not decided yet on where CELH falls on this spectrum.
Yes. Massively short at $4.73. Will cover when it gets a low 2-handle...Looking forward to next earnings release.
Rebuttal to Matt Kanh departure being a GOOD thing: Everyday, people leaving a firm are offered severance or better terms for leaving, provided they give a "positive" spin on their departure. The fact that Mr. Kanh is "now beginning to explore new career opportunities." at the same time he is announcing his departure for "personal reasons" is an easy tell. Why would he be exploring new opportunities instead of returning to work for CELH if things were now fine in his personal life and so great at CELH. Sometimes I wonder about how such naive people can successfully make money when they can so easily be manipulated...Wake up.
Rebuttal to velocity argument: Merchants are happy to take on new products when they are being offered a free case for each case purchased (BOGO). The margin for selling the 2 cases (one of which is free) is a wonderful boost to that month's profit, but merely a sugar high unless velocity increases. When the CELH salesman comes back, merchant needs more free cases or will delist. Most independent convenience store owners have a few lines in the cold box devoted specifically to the "loser products" that cost almost nothing, generate great margins when sold, but move so slowly that they usually have to give the last few cans away. They delist the product and move on to the next sucker waiting in line. CELH cannot continue giving product away without incurring tremendous operating losses, as it has since its formation: It has never made an operating profit, trailing twelve months operating losses are still $6mm & it has accumulated a $73m million loss! Nowhere near the profitability it would see if its product was actually being picked up by consumers without being "given away" to merchants. The reason CELH is focusing on "Number of Stores" instead of "Same Store Sales", which is more relevant to future growth, is because they have nothing positive to say about "Same Store Sales".
I was wondering why CELH came out with press release full of nice adjectives regarding Spins and number of stores yesterday....Now it makes sense:
"CELSIUS EVP of marketing Matt Kahn confirmed this week that he has left the energy drink company, less than a year after joining in October 2018.[/I]"
The above news came out the same day...Not great for a senior executive and industry veteran to leave after being there less than a year.
CELH just came out with a "great" press release about incredible increases in store count in the US (Oct 23 Release). They also quote great spins results, beating the entire industry by 4x (convenience) and 8x (grocery). In the industry this is called the SPRAY AND PRAY approach. Place the product in as many stores as possible and PRAY that it sells. Problem is that consumer goods, especially drinks, do not sell just by being put on the shelves. Notice that NOWHERE in the press release do they point to independent figures showing SAME STORE VELOCITY INCREASES. That's because their velocities are generally DECREASING after initial listing buzz. This strategy results in a tremendous brushfire of sales when the pipeline is filled, but the fire rapidly dies out when retailers realize product is a dud. Sorry to rain on everyone's parade. But this company will survive only as long as it can get more funding from its already engaged shareholders (good money after bad) OR by engaging in silly distractive acquisitions like Func OR by engaging in the accounting games they tried to pull off by selling their Chinese rights to an affiliate for a GAIN, and then showing the receivable as an ASSET.
If you think this through....with the Halt, they keep the door shut on any new walk-downs AND they force the enemies to show all their cards, which it looks like they've done (with this last sorry and hilarious piece of video due diligence).
Once ALL your adversaries have shown you their their weak hands and they can't leave the table, show them and everyone else, your beautiful hand...and the rest is history. They will never play with you again.
Game theory 101, but would be a brilliant move.
This is the most plausible explanation I have seen since the halt.
I was thinking the same thing. I haven't seen many "coincidences" since this soap opera started.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=101061&tid=90198&mid=90240&tof=3&rt=1&frt=2&off=1
We shall see.
Yes, I still own all of those shares and some call options.
Waiting like everyone else. I don't have any additional info.
Everything since Friday is purely conjecture, as far as I'm concerned. I don't understand why everyone who is long is entertaining this idea of DTT restating or resigning. This is playing into the fear that shorts are still trying to perpetuate, despite the halt. (remember, they want us to be so scared and traumatized this weekend, that even with good news, we rush to sell below $20 when trading resumes - best outcome for them if good news) I don't see any shred of evidence regarding a DTT resignation. All circumstantial evidence actually points to the opposite being true i.e. that DTT has been at it for 2 months and is almost finished their work.
I have no idea why the halt is taking place, and yes, it is somewhat worrisome, but I feel confident in my due diligence and I still see nothing material or logical with ANY of the stories put forth by the shorts.
Hopefully, we see a resolution tomorrow.
Newport.
This makes a lot of sense to me. Very insightful post.
So they each convert their short stock positions into short call positions. Short calls don't trigger Reg SHO nor do they trigger borrow costs (assuming they were not naked) and they do not show up in the short report.
My next question would be why are so many market makers short so many shares? I used to see market makers as the people who didn't take much in terms of overnight positions.
You refer to the fact they might be short stock as a hedge for something else. Sold puts, I presume? This would make sense given all the extra "pre-hit-piece" demand for puts by short sellers.
I think this is starting to make sense for me.
The end result is that there might be a significant amount of "additional" or "hidden" short positions that will need to come out of the woodwork when the stock price starts rising. There's nothing like negative Gamma to give an option trader ulcers. i.e. having to buy the stock when price is going up. Ouch! I guess that's why they're charging 80% + vol for these put options.
You got it...!
That's for the MM Reg SHO....could be others involved which are keeping it on Reg SHO. These will need to cover day 13.
There was no need for more liquidity, not with CCME.
It was an easy "excuse" by MM to have naked short positions....before Feb 28....when the rules changed and no longer allowed MM to abuse this part of the rules.
I agree with RT.
Only problem is that it appears most of the deep ITM call activity is being exercised. Hence the huge daily VOLUME but little change in open interest.
This would indicate to me that there is no advantage for a market maker to sell calls, rather than sell the stock short, because he will the next day have to deliver shares anyways (which he will need to borrow at those same exorbitant rates).
My best guess at what might happening here, relates to REG SHO.
Assume MM is over 1mm shares short and is not properly borrowing those shares (totally legal) ...i.e short position for which there is a fail to deliver borrowed shares. If the MM created this short as a result of his efforts to "maintain liquidity" these shares would be exempt from Reg SHO rules, UNTIL FEB 28. Assume most of these naked short shares were created BEFORE THE Feb 28 Reg SHO amendment, when the market maker was allowed to exempt himself from Reg SHO due to liquidity issues. Now, post-Feb 28, the market maker can no longer hide behind this silly exemption and has to cover the Reg SHO naked short position just like everybody else. Assume he has been carrying this naked short for a while but now with the new rules, has to do something about it.
He goes ahead and buys massive amounts of Deep ITM calls from his buddy the options MM, which he promptly exercises in order to fix the naked short problem (uses shares upon exercise to settle naked short). However, the options MM now has a similar problem in that he must deliver shares to option purchaser he cannot borrow in order to settle the calls. But here's the twist, the options MM IS NOT SUBJECT to Reg SHO for the shares he uses to settle the sold calls. So long as he already had similar calls outstanding in his book before Reg SHO started. Not similar AMOUNT of calls, only a position, which he is allowed to increase at will, without triggering Reg SHO requirement.
If you looks at the net of all those transactions, nothing has changed. Overall number of shares short hasn't changed. Except, that if the original shares were subject to Reg SHO, the resulting short shares are NOT subject to Reg SHO. Nice trick.
JMHO
From CBOE Regulations Committee:
Question 2
If an options market-maker’s fail to deliver on a short sale is excluded from the close-out requirement because the short sale was effected to establish or maintain a hedge on option positions that were created before the underlying security became a threshold security, are further short sales by the options market-maker excluded from the pre-borrow requirement of Regulation SHO?
Answer
In the case where an options market-maker’s existing fail to deliver is exempt from the close-out requirement, the pre-borrow requirement of Regulation SHO [Section 203(b)(3)(iii)] does not apply to further short sales. Please refer to Regulation SHO, Section 203(b)(3)(i), for further detail.
In the case of a short sale fail to deliver position that has persisted for 13 consecutive business days and was not effected to establish or maintain a hedge on option positions that were created before the underlying security became a threshold security, the pre-borrow requirement applies.
This whole deep ITM money call discussion is becoming less and less coherent.
When you buy a call and exercise it, the shares need to come from the call seller you bought the call from. If they have the shares, then it is merely an exchange of a long position from them to you. If they don't have the shares, then they must borrow them to deliver them to you. If they cannot borrow them, then they could theoretically be going naked short. In all cases, there is nothing "hidden" about this. And in all cases, you need to find someone willing to sell you those calls. Calls don't come from the ether. They always need to have someone else on the other side. Either a silly short seller with a view that stock will go bellow that strike (talk about delusional) or the MM. In either case, you need someone who is willing to GO SHORT some more. There is no "hidden short" in this case.
If someone is buying deep ITM calls, he is creating buying pressure on the underlying stock in the present moment. If someone on the other side is selling those calls naked, he is negating that buying pressure by essentially being short the Delta of that call.
None of this is different than someone buying shares and someone on the other side shorting the stock. The fact that they are deep ITM calls doesn't change anything, EXCEPT that a short to hedge calls written by an options market maker is not subject to Reg SHO like the underlying stock is, including additional options written during the REGSHO period. This might be the loophole being exploited here.
FROM CBOE Division of Regulations
Question 2
If an options market-maker’s fail to deliver on a short sale is excluded from the close-out requirement because the short sale was effected to establish or maintain a hedge on option positions that were created before the underlying security became a threshold security, are further short sales by the options market-maker excluded from the pre-borrow requirement of Regulation SHO?
Answer
In the case where an options market-maker’s existing fail to deliver is exempt from the close-out requirement, the pre-borrow requirement of Regulation SHO [Section 203(b)(3)(iii)] does not apply to further short sales. Please refer to Regulation SHO, Section 203(b)(3)(i), for further detail.
In the case of a short sale fail to deliver position that has persisted for 13 consecutive business days and was not effected to establish or maintain a hedge on option positions that were created before the underlying security became a threshold security, the pre-borrow requirement applies.
Loving this "Positive Vibe" weekend....Great idea!
And 80 degrees on the West coast also helps. Looking forward to another exciting week for CCME. Happy conclusion to this most amazing financial saga coming soon, IMO (smile).
Happy weekend to all.
Newport
My point exactly. See earlier post below in italics.
Other recent theory I've seen which makes some sense to me is : that Carson made a deal with some shady characters for 2 hit pieces. After his first piece (and all other hit pieces) was totally decimated by this board, he told them a second piece would have an opposite impact. They disagreed (and were greedy for more) and asked him to write it anyways. They threatened him (in their own way - guns and baseball bats) and, fearful for his life, he reluctantly agreed to write something, and the bogus tape is all that he could come up with. He knew it would be very weak and totally debunked within minutes, but he fulfilled his end of the bargain. (News for you, Carson, deals with the devil rarely end well)
From earlier post:
My guess is that this last report is almost entirely to try and exonerate MW from as much legal responsibility as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they got some "informal" phone calls/information requests from regulators and/or lawyers and Carson Block is now trying to publicly distance himself from all the fabrication of evidence. He might be starting to feel the heat. Maybe his wife is starting to freak out.
I can see no other reason to release the phone call. The call in itself is extremely damaging to the short case, but it DOES introduce a third party (CCME saleswoman) that seemingly fed MW faulty bus lists. She tries to point to a "misunderstanding" in how to use those reports, which is probably what MW would want regulators or suitors to believe. No one can be sued for a good faith misunderstanding. Everyone gets off the hook when that happens, even though it resulted in a half a billion dollar market cap loss (sorry, says he!).
This supposed third party confirmation debunks the current view that Carson Block (on his wife's computer), made up the entire thing and attributes the blame to this "misunderstanding" between the "CCME source" and MW. This episode shifts the focus to this "mystery CCME saleswoman" away from MW and Carson Block. (IMO, he probably had someone call in and and fabricated the whole CCME woman thing as well, making this even more difficult to prove, but it does accomplish the task of moving the liability away from himself).
I know this sounds very convoluted, but I believe this is how these types of people think. They have to stay one step ahead of the game, always. And they don't just release such a stupid research report for no underlying reason. Not someone that engineered the whole Chinese New years, pre-earnings black-out period short attack. I don't believe that he is at the same time, both extremely crafty and supremely stupid. Doesn't make sense to me.
I'm sticking to my story below. I think short funds feel they got shafted by MW yesterday and now brought in the heavy artillery, so to speak, (Herbie can only be used sparingly in this saga) to try and make some sense out of all of this. His article is the best they could come up with, which gets back to my point. The latest MW report was not to help shorts, but to try and distance Carson Block from the liability associated with fabricating the spreadsheets. Very encouraging that this is all the shorts have to offer as a come-back, btw. JMHO.
My guess is that this last report is almost entirely to try and exonerate MW from as much legal responsibility as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they got some "informal" phone calls/information requests from regulators and/or lawyers and Carson Block is now trying to publicly distance himself from all the fabrication of evidence. He might be starting to feel the heat. Maybe his wife is starting to freak out.
I can see no other reason to release the phone call. The call in itself is extremely damaging to the short case, but it DOES introduce a third party (CCME saleswoman) that seemingly fed MW faulty bus lists. She tries to point to a "misunderstanding" in how to use those reports, which is probably what MW would want regulators or suitors to believe. No one can be sued for a good faith misunderstanding. Everyone gets off the hook when that happens, even though it resulted in a half a billion dollar market cap loss (sorry, says he!).
This supposed third party confirmation debunks the current view that Carson Block (on his wife's computer), made up the entire thing and attributes the blame to this "misunderstanding" between the "CCME source" and MW. This episode shifts the focus to this "mystery CCME saleswoman" away from MW and Carson Block. (IMO, he probably had someone call in and and fabricated the whole CCME woman thing as well, making this even more difficult to prove, but it does accomplish the task of moving the liability away from himself).
I know this sounds very convoluted, but I believe this is how these types of people think. They have to stay one step ahead of the game, always. And they don't just release such a stupid research report for no underlying reason. Not someone that engineered the whole Chinese New years, pre-earnings black-out period short attack. I don't believe that he is at the same time, both extremely crafty and supremely stupid. Doesn't make sense to me.
Good point...but as I said, he is trying to exonerate himself while still keeping his role as "honest and tough financial analyst" role. He wants us to come to the conclusion about the misunderstanding, not to come out and admit it. Admitting the misunderstanding would require a retraction. Its the old "Lie once and you need 2 lies to cover the first lie, lie twice, and you need 4 lies to cover those". Not my way of running my life, but I've seen these types in action and that's how they often think...they view all of this as a game of chess.
My guess is that this last report is almost entirely to try and exonerate MW from as much legal responsibility as possible. I wouldn't be surprised if they got some "informal" phone calls/information requests from regulators and/or lawyers and Carson Block is now trying to publicly distance himself from all the fabrication of evidence. He might be starting to feel the heat. Maybe his wife is starting to freak out.
I can see no other reason to release the phone call. The call in itself is extremely damaging to the short case, but it DOES introduce a third party (CCME saleswoman) that seemingly fed MW faulty bus lists. She tries to point to a "misunderstanding" in how to use those reports, which is probably what MW would want regulators or suitors to believe. No one can be sued for a good faith misunderstanding. Everyone gets off the hook when that happens, even though it resulted in a half a billion dollar market cap loss (sorry, says he!).
This supposed third party confirmation debunks the current view that Carson Block (on his wife's computer), made up the entire thing and attributes the blame to this "misunderstanding" between the "CCME source" and MW. This episode shifts the focus to this "mystery CCME saleswoman" away from MW and Carson Block. (IMO, he probably had someone call in and and fabricated the whole CCME woman thing as well, making this even more difficult to prove, but it does accomplish the task of moving the liability away from himself).
I know this sounds very convoluted, but I believe this is how these types of people think. They have to stay one step ahead of the game, always. And they don't just release such a stupid research report for no underlying reason. Not someone that engineered the whole Chinese New years, pre-earnings black-out period short attack. I don't believe that he is at the same time, both extremely crafty and supremely stupid. Doesn't make sense to me.
I have to agree with the HockeyMan.
Short are not to be underestimated. We have to admit they've played this game very well so far, albeit with illegal means, IMO.
We have them in a corner, but they won't walk away without a fight. Smart ones will walk out with a few bruises. Followers will get wiped out. IMO.
Agree. Seeing more and more strength against weaker and weaker dumps.
In a way, this continuous dumping to keep the price under control will all end up playing for longs when shorts can no longer bear the pain. So its all good.
WCT Bills should start his own TV show....seriously, he is hilarious! Love every blog entry he's done so far...especially the latest Carson Block/Deloitte comedy hour! A must see!
Now every time I look at a Chinese company for investment purposes, I will always wonder whether I have a WCTBills as co-investor to protect the company from the short mafia...
WCT...this is a service you should offer to all 200 or so US-listed chinese smallcaps....the WCT insurance policy. If I were a CEO, I would certainly pay a pretty premium for the service...
Thank you, WCT!
My thoughts exactly.
I like it.
Patience and independent thinking are an investor's greatest assets.
My first Instablog...
seekingalpha.com/instablog/646774-bullmarket/138534-ccme-management-will-strike-back-shorts-are-on-borrowed-time
Makes me young, as when the world was new...
-Andrew
Based on my experience with Switow, they are still working out all the kinks and are very smart to take this step by step. I have no doubt that when they have Switow running smoothly, the catalogs could "propel" this business higher than we can fathom at this time. I have to admit this is one of the things I like about this management team: its not because they have $170mm+ in the bank that they will spend it foolishly. They want proof of concept (and ROI calcs) before they open the spigots. That's how they've built their core business and that's why they are so profitable, IMO.
I like the idea of getting a representative for the group to communicate with management, although I believe we already have something of that sort with Andrew, WCT and Fernando.
WRT WCT for PR, although I think he is doing a more than heroic job with his blog and all the objective info he has been providing, it is still not his day job, as far as I know. Also, I believe what the company needs is a large, well-established, PR/IR firm with deep contacts within the media world. A firm that could plant positive articles, rebut all this short agenda crap, within the mainstream media. This type of access takes years and decades of 3-martini lunches with newspeople to develop. It is something you get instantly when you pay the big bucks for a top tier PR firm.
They can hire different research firms to prepare reports and analysis like what WCTBills has been doing. Getting the facts, while critical, is only one part of the issue (and WCT has been filling that void nicely). Where we are equally weak (and I don't think WCT brings this to the table) is in the "dissemination" of these facts in a neutral or positive tone.
We basically need a firm that has the wherewithal to get this increasingly interesting narrative on CNBC's "American Greed" or "60 Minutes" or on the front page of the WSJ.
JMHO
Cool. Will check it out.
Newport
Fraudulent Short Sellers are a Parasitic Disease that must be "Broken" like a High Fever.
Once broken, you are immune from the disease, FOREVER. Until CCME breaks this fever, we will be subject to the ups and downs of very crafty manipulators and cheaters.
2-step, 10 day, Dr. Newport Miracle Remedy:
Step 1) New Buyback with $10mm/day bought at market, regardless of where it brings you, for a total of 10 consecutive business days or $100mm (this ensures ALL shorts get wiped off the surface of the patient (and of the earth), so no future growth is possible).
Step 2) Positive news items every day for those 10 days, starting with the announcement of the conference call and 10k results in 10 days, followed by confirmation of cash by DT, followed by new bus contracts, followed by quotes from top ten advertisers (or their agents), followed by quotes from 10 largest bus operators, etc...to be capped off with the actual release of better than expected audited 2010 results and Amazing guidance for 2011).
Success guaranteed.
File for $100mm stock offering after 10 days at $40. Whole operation highly accretive to all existing shareholders.
Welcome to the Light, Blue Horseshoe. We all knew you had it in you. Just needed some time, I guess. :)
Jacky was asked about this on the last quarterly call.
My recollection is that he said DT was in their offices regularly and yes, they had reviewed the quarterly statements. They just didn't perform an audit of them, because its not required.
As someone else said, any serious auditing firm wouldn't want to come in blind after 12 months and start the annual audit without having kept an eye on things throughout the year. Just doesn't work that way.
There is a constant back and forth between your auditors and internal accounting staff regarding questions on how to account for things, how to treat certain contracts, new accounting rules, etc...This is how it works in every business I've been involved with. I am sure CCME is no different. The bigger the business, the more frequent the interactions with the auditors throughout the year.
For example, at most large US banks, the auditors have a permanent office within the bank, permanently staffed by the auditing firm's personnel year round.
Anything else on your mind, Imcat? :)
Very nice summary. Well done.
He is not even subtle about it.
Yes. It appears to be the same guy. Here's the trail:
http://florida.arrests.org/Arrests/Andrew_Left_5278017/
(Mug Shot for Andrew Left - Petit Theft - Christmas Vacations visiting mommy?)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=731092470
Andrew Left Facebook (any resemblance? Even without the throw-up on the face)
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1594698676
Rhoda Left Black (presumably Left's mom who lives in Boca Raton, but relationship doesn't matter, only that she has Andrew Left as a friend)
http://www.facebook.com/fleft
Rhoda Left Black has another friend named Franklin Left (Presumably Andrew Left's Brother)
Franklin Left is the registered Owner of 2666 Hutton Drive, Beverly Hills, the address on the Mug Shot Above
http://losangeles.blockshopper.com/property/4384002018/2666_hutton/
Most Important Link (the missing link):
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1503998366
Ranita Gomez - Common Friend to
Rhoda Left Black (mom?)
Franklin Left (brother?)
Andrew Left AND
Andrea Shomer Left (ex-Wife? only because she's not on the mom's friend list)
Andrea Shomer Left was Married to Andrew Edward Left (CEO of Detour Magazine - the one who was convicted of stealing $25,000 from the magazine, the same month he started Stocklemon) in 2001
http://business.highbeam.com/2012/article-1G1-77257377/weddings
I wrote to Shapiro expressing an interest in working with them.
I got a call back 10 minutes later from Kaitlyn Saner at Shapiro. They are gathering information and could have the suit ready to launch as early as Monday. I was surprised at this. She said things were looking "pretty good".
I will keep you posted on anything new.
What I would really like to know is why the stock tanked on Friday when the Citron POS came out on Sunday (monday).
My point exactly. The risk with all of this is that the US becomes a "listing of last resort" instead of the premier place to be. Of course, this would take a while, because we are still so far ahead. But at this rate, and with this type of rampant abuse, it could be quick. The word spreads fast with the internet, as we all know.
I was approached a few weeks back by a contact in Beijing who owns a large real estate conglomerate and was interested in listing in the US. He got to me because of a mutual friend and my interest in China stocks listed in the US. I advised him to be very careful and to consider other exchanges just as carefully (HK, for example).
The word on this type of situation will spread quickly amongst executives in China (and elsewhere). Would be a shame to be cut off from all of these growing markets and opportunities as US investors.
Yes. I spoke to a gentleman (Allan Chan) and a few of his staff (2 ladies; Coco and Yvonne) in Shanghai in their sales department. All three were familiar with CCME. I might even have one of their presentations that references CCME and how Inter-city rates compare to Intra-city rates.
Allan was a friend of Jacky and an ex-Baring banker who owned some shares in Towona and I believe sits on their board. I would be happy to call him and report back. Who is collecting this info? Report back to this board?