Replies to post #59466 on China Growth Stocks

[ratobranco]

ONP - I've been going over the arguments point by point, and I don't see why you conclude that the main MW points have been refuted.

For example, when you say,

"MW used aic filings that were not the real AIC filings to state that ONP overstated earnings and ONP's filings match."

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

If you are talking about the debate over whether MW pulled the AIC filings of the right subsidiary see p.3 of this Rick Pearson piece, MW maintains their claim that they had the right subsidiary all along.

http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/research/orient-paper-inc/response-to-rick-pearso/

What was Rick Pearson/ONP's response to the above MW response that led you to conclude that ONP was correct in claiming that MW had the AIC filings of the wrong subsidiary? A link would be appreciated.

Also, has anyone on ONP's side effectively responded to this:

http://chinesecompanyanalyst.com/2010/08/09/onp-its-largest-supplier-is-an-empty-shell-owned-by-the-ceo/

Correct me if I'm wrong, but neither of the above two points (MW's refutation of ONP/Pearson's claim that they had identified the wrong subsidiary, and CCA's point about the empty shell owned by the CEO) is addressed in your Aug 13 article.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/220373-taking-another-look-at-orient-paper-s-innocence

The AIC filings issue is water under the bridge, because ONP is not special in having non-matching filings. The problem is that ONP responded to the AIC filings argument in a way that displayed lack of transparency (if in fact MW did have the right subsidiary all along).

But the shell situation, if properly described by CCA, is a huge fraud indicator, very sketchy, and I don't know what the ONP response is. I haven't seen anyone make a response.