Replies to post #91289 on China Growth Stocks

[Scandle34]

I honestly don't have any way of reconciling the behaviors of any party in the expose you did. However I have never seen any response to the "sunday stamp" issue and Kevin Chen's report carried more weight with me than yours.

[adamh8]

LLEN - long time lurker, first time poster…

White Tiger, LLEN did provide the SAIC filings for all their subsidiaries. Of course, it shows their proper ownership of their subsidiaries.

Also I’m shocked that you say OTG due diligence isn’t useful; site visits are in fact extremely and incredibly useful! Just because some people made some unbelievably stupid mistakes doing site visits in the past does not mean, in any way whatsoever, that people should stop doing them, or that they produce no useful information. Clearly some short sellers did some site visits that yielded incredible results and insight into the operations (or lack thereof) of some companies, so site visits are key in true due diligence. You don’t agree?

We all learn from mistakes, and can learn from other people’s mistakes: which means that site visits now are even more useful now that people know what to look out for and know the “MO” of fraud companies. We know to look deeper into the operations, rather than just go out and have an expensive dinner with management and drink some Mao-tai (as some did, I’m sure). Now people who have the ability to go to China for due diligence are looking far, far harder at the operations and spending much more time on the ground (literally) as a result of some ridiculous mistakes. And I shouldn’t limit this to just doing due diligence in China – some investors in US companies need some true OTG due diligence as well!

Finally, this whole SAIC/SAT discrepancy=fraud issue is a moot point: earlier this year a California court ruled that the data in an SAIC/SAT file cannot be used to prove fraud. The court said that you need to actually prove that the SEC filings are false, regardless of what the SAIC filings say. It goes back to what Chris Sykes was saying (which I whole-heartedly agree): the issue is clearly blown out of proportion if it got to the point of the court system to confirm that SAIC filings cannot be used to claim fraud.

I take it from the tone of your reply, you never been on-site at Ping Yi or any of the other LLEN subs? Honest question, since if Ping Yi was never owned by LLEN, it should be easy to go on-site and get verification of that. I would have thought you owe that to your subscribers before making such a “conclusive” statement of fraud in LLEN.

Thanks for listening.