Agreed. However, I think the article is valuable in its discussion of SAIC filings. If the tier 1 names like SOLF (mentioned in the article) have matching SAIC filings, then that is a problem for the thesis that the i-banks/IR are feeding us, which is that SAIC filings don't matter.
The word on the street is that the tier 1 names consistently match. I've heard that from multiple sources--some of whom are long this space. Personally, I know that SPRD, another tier 1 name, matches.
One project that I think Maj is going to invest in with his new premium membership will be getting SAIC filings for tier 1 names like BIDU, CTRP, and so on. It's expensive, but if SAIC filings are not taken seriously, you should have at least some mismatches in those names as well. If you do see mismatches, that will bolster the credibility of the RTO's. If not, then they have some 'splainin to do.
The article also quotes entrepreneurs in China who claim that SAIC filings are taken seriously, contrary to what i-banks/IR tell us. So I think the issue is still up in the air, and needs to be researched.
I'm pretty confident that there are at least some cases of mismatching SAIC filings where the SAIC filings are worthless, because I know that CCME is a mismatch ($1MM in revenues per the SAIC), and there is no way they are generating numbers that low.
But in cases where they don't match, we need to figure out why. Is it for tax reduction/evasion purposes? Is it to avoid alerting competitors to profit levels and margins? We need the explanation, nobody lies just for the hell of it. The whole "nobody cares about these silly SAIC forms" line doesn't appear to be true.
Ultimately, I don't think any of these filings are reliable per se: SEC, SAIC, SAT. It all comes down to the auditor and the company's credibility, independent third party checks conducted by investors, and so forth, hence the need to stick to quality names.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
