"Staar hired dttt advisory service to advise on legitimacy of ccme . They also hired private investigator , did background checks on ccme before they invested."
I have all the court filings. Where exactly is it stated that Starr hired a "Private Investigator" to research CCME? I can't seem to find that in any document ever published except for your posting without evidence to back your claim.
"You could still argue no other reverse merger Company was more researched just based on staar."
I've never heard anyone argue that. When you're presented with false information to research, as Starr is alleging in their lawsuit, it's pretty difficult to create good information from bad.
"Of all the muddy research his view is ccme was real but overstating"
Nowhere in any Muddy Waters report did they refer to CCME as being "real". It's a moot argument really because the issue isn't whether something is real or not. Obviously it's "real". Using intelligence and logic, for fraud to exist - it would have to have been created from "something". Maybe your definition of "real" and mine are completely different. If the subject matter we are talking about, for example, is a hurt toe, there'd have to be an entity (a person) present in order to experience the pain of that hurt toe. Fraud doesn't spring up from nothing. Something had to be present in order to trigger the fraud. Therefore, on those grounds, of course the company exists. However, that's not what concerns anyone because it's a moot and obvious point.
What concerns us is "to what degree" did the fraud exist. The market tends to believe that it existed to a very high degree and has priced the shares accordingly. Researchers, such as myself, believe that it doesn't matter "to what degree" fraud exists because if there is any fraud at all - an investor would be foolish to invest capital into a business that he knows is fraudulent (regardless of what degree).
If one bus is counted incorrectly, that's enough reason for me to stay away from the investment. After reading the ownership structure of the business (that was supplied in the 10-K), that information was enough cause for concern to make an investor stay away.
RE: A separate poster who posted this equation:
Share price = Expected Value if not fraud * Probability Not Fraud
.31 = 15 * X
X = .0155
Probability of Being Fraud = 1 - X = 0.9845.
Could you explain how you arrived at X = .0155. That doesn't make sense to me if the equation is written (as you've done):
Share price = Expected Value if not fraud * Probability Not Fraud.
The way you've written the equation, the answer for X would be .0207
