A few weeks is more than a couple but less than several. I hope that helps. :)--Chad
My eyelids have opened now, Chad. Thanks a million! Sounds like you're toying with the idea of getting into politics.
But, kidding aside, as others have indicated or stated outright, putting out a press release telling people who have invested their life savings in the company, and some a very large portion thereof, that the company intends to do something, but most especially something as important as releasing the 2010 year-end earnings report within a few weeks and then not doing it (a few weeks is less than a month in my book)--especially given the peculiar constraints and the something of a no man's land this pink sheet stock is currently caught in, not to mention the horrible state of affairs this overall sector has been in because of lack of trust in what Chinese companies are telling investors--is not a smart move. Indeed, I didn't post my reply to Olivernoyes because I felt what I had written might unnecessarily foster, like short attacks do, a nagging sense of doubt that could easily grow and fester to the detriment to all longs. Suffice it to say that I completely disagreed with his notion that 10 weeks could be construed as falling within the common understanding of "a few weeks."
As I've repeatedly said, I feel to the benefit of all you and SIAF's management have done a fabulous job of building trust these past 8 months. I also think some playful banter is a healthy thing. Yet since it can take a lot longer to regain trust if it's once lost, I hope you will not start using language in such a sloppy fashion that "a few weeks" ends up meaning the same thing as "a few months".
You guys are in the drive's seat when it comes to PRs. You have always been fully aware, as most investors in SIAF now know, that earnings aren't technically due out until 3/31. So to go out of your way to volunteer in good faith in a corporate update in late January that you earnestly believe earnings will be out in a few weeks, which amounts to purposely urging investors to dismiss the 3/31 date and adopt the new time frame instead, ought to be backed up with appropriate action: either deliver within the expected time frame, or provide a brief update explaining why that earlier projection is no longer valid.
Of course, if management hadn't purposely raised expectations, then there wouldn't be a need to do another PR. But it clearly did raise expectations. Unfortunately, given the very recent response you evidently sent to Strindberg on 2/25/11 (post #5156), investors now are being told privately that, hey, 3/31 is when earnings are due out and don't forget the company is entitled to request an extension to 4/15 if need be, so, hey, chill, my hands are tied. Quite a disconnect from my perspective. But, then again, to me a few weeks means less than a month, and for all I know earnings will be out on Monday--although I now strongly doubt that.
I don't, by the way, have any doubt earnings will get done. But that's a different matter.
Steve
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
