Mark; Yes, we should always look at facts. THEN we might speculate BASED on the facts. Dismissing facts and you're WAY of. What? The speed limit is 50? Nah, all the other cars drives 60. So? The speed limit is STILL 50 and YOU will be held responsible if you cause an accident because of speeding.
Again; There is a HUGE difference between broken promises/endless delays (which we might/should expect going forward) and official records - you're assuming that SIAF has scammed 50 (?) partners, the respected D&B, as well as one of the largest banks in the world. THAT needs SOME sort of proof - or at least some GOOD reasoning to why the FACTS don't apply. The only think you're offering is a declining PPS, overpromising and false claims about "quiet front". This is dangerously close to slander in my opinion.
The company will make goodies disappear? Are you referring to SJAP&HU now? That happens - duh. And, again, I think you have misunderstood the whole purpose with COSO.
How do separate small cattle farms qualify as part of a stock company? Yes, and how do small separate restaurants qualify as part of McDonalds. Uh? You can disagree with the business-mode, but using that as a proof of scam? Uh... Does that apply to gas-stations as well?
Vanished into TRW? Again - the current TRW is NOT identical to what SIAF owned earlier. So SIAF has been able to SCAM it's partner to gain access of some real value, AND sell them a worthless license?
Basic facts? Where? Doesn't make a profit? Now, can you tell me the last quarter SIAF did NOT make a profit? No? What happened to your facts?
Can we please focus on the REAL issues? (like the credibility issue of BOD) There are risks in SIAF, but these disappear in the noise of all false claims that are being made.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
