Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Business Economics Analyst  

View Business Economics Analyst's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • PWC Zhong Tian: A Chinese Auditor With A Flawless Record [View article]

    You say that you took a look at the companies which PWC Zhong Tian audited and you found none of them to be fraudulent. What work did you do to determine that none of them are fraudulent? It certainly appears to me that a number of them are fraudulent.
    Mar 31, 2012. 09:21 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • PWC Zhong Tian: A Chinese Auditor With A Flawless Record [View article]

    What evidence do you have to support the statement that 'whatever number PWC Zhong Tian have signed off on are verified to be true'? You haven't provided any evidence in your article. This just seems to be an unsupported conclusion.
    Mar 31, 2012. 09:21 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kandi Technologies Set to Be Big Winner in International Electric Car Market [View article]
    Mr. Porcari:

    Also, one more, very small, part of the reason I have a small short position in KNDI is finding an individual like yourself relentlessly pumping this company. This is further supported when you react very negatively and irrationally when reasonable questions are raised, and then fail to answer such questions.
    It appears that the SEC believes that you have engaged in inappropriate activities before, that may be similar to your current activities with KNDI. Specifically, the SEC found that in or about September 1989, you were retained by The Cedar Group, Inc., to engage in financial public relations acitivite and that in connection with your efforts to bring about a short squeeze in Cedar's securities, you made predictions, without a reasonable basis, to registered representatives that Cedar's stock price would rise to specified levles within specified periods of time. The SEC also found that you advised groups of registered representives to purchase specied amounts of Cedar's securities simultaneously in order to raise the market price of those securities.
    Here is the link
    ShareSleuth has also published information about your nonstop efforts to pump Kandi, about the fact that you were invovled with the group that arranged the reverse merger for Kandi, that you and a gentleman named Fearnow both were fined and suspended by the NASD for violating insider-trading and fair practice rules at the now-defunct firm of Porcari, Fearnow and Associates, and that you were an online cheerleader for two otehr companies, Net Comand Tech Inc. and Host America Corp, whose stock rose sharply after they issued attention-getting press releases. Teh SEC halted trading in both companies and when their trading resumed, their shares plummetted in value. Here is the sharesleuth link
    So, yes, you help in making a decision to short the company, as I suspect it may be a pump and dump fraud.
    Any other questions? Oh, I have one, now that you know I am short, are you planning to try to engineer a short squeeze?
    Jul 29, 2011. 01:19 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Citron vs. Harbin: 5 Questions Shorts and Longs Should Be Asking [View article]
    Answer re Harbin Short questions:

    1. Could this be one of the few times Citron is wrong? Why is there so much smart money buying Harbin now? Why is this one different from the other alleged Chinese RTO scams?

    Citron is not wrong. I am not aware of any smart money buying Harbin now. Pentwater, who is reported to be buying Harbin, engages in capital structure arbitrage, so they are not betting Harbin is legit, but are betting in mispricings in the capital structure, so they would be short some other part of the capital structure (most likely, in this case, options). This one is not different from other alleged Chinese RTO scams - I am not sure what difference you supposedly see.

    2. Why did Citron say the loan fraud was regarding Harbin's CEO, Tianfu Yang, when it was really regarding his brother, Tianli Yang? Why did Citron say Tianli Yang was a board member of Harbin when he isn't one and is only a VP? Does this confirm that Tianfu Yang has a clear record?

    It seems you have just made conclusions, without providing factual support. I am not aware that it has been established that Citron was wrong, that the loan fraud was not Harbin's CEO, Tianfu Yang, and was instead his brother. I am not aware that Tianli was never a board member of Harbin and only a VP. I am happy to consider any facts showing this and get Citron's response but you have merely made conclusory questions, when the facts need to be researched and examined. I haven't done so because I was convinced by my own research with more direct evidence about Harbin Electric that the company is a fraud and the deal won't go through.

    3. Citron wrote that the SEC should halt the security because Harbin hadn't filed any 8-Ks. Well, now that they have, does that change Citron's opinion?

    I don't believe that would change Citron's opinion. I don't agree with your reading that Citron should halt the security merely because 8-ks havne't been filed. I read it that the SEC should halt the security because they are committing fraud.

    4. Chinese Development Bank is a Chinese government owned bank. They loan to many small businesses to encourage national growth and get a higher return than the 3% they're getting from US treasuries. They have over RMB 5 trillion ($775 billion) in assets, so is it possible they'd support Harbin, a successful company in a growth industry? Also, what is the likelihood that such a big bank would have an employee that would lie about giving Harbin a loan? What's in it for them to lie, is it one big conspiracy?

    Banks in china have been frequently involved in fraud, particularly to fleece american investors. China Development Bank is a significant shareholder of ABAX, who is one of the supposed buyout participants in this deal. ABAX has a terrible record of investing in lousy chinese companies. In the U.S., if the bank was a significant shareholder in one of the buyout participants, it would be a deal that everyone thought smelled bad. It is no different here.
    I don't consider Harbin a successful company is a growth industry, I consider it to be falsifying its financials and to be a not very successful company. The odds of such a big bank having an employee lie about giving a loan to a company is high - the size of the bank doesn't reduce the likelihood of having a company lie. Furthermore, if you understand the Chinese culture, many consider that there is nothing wrong with this.
    I believe there is a good chance that China Development bank is in on the fraud, and not just with Harbin Electric. What is in it for them is profits from pump and dump scams which fleece american, and even chinese or other investors. These banks are also involved in deals with companies in the chinese exchanges and those exchanges are among the most corrupt in the world.

    5. Citron is concerned that Harbin is too dependent on borrowing. Its debt/equity ratio is only about 25% and it has more cash than debt according to its reported balance sheet. That doesn't seem too dependent to me.

    Based on the SAIC filings, Citron doesn't believe the reported balance sheet in the SEC filings. In fact, to me, this is the main reason to believe that Harbin Electric is a fraud and the deal is not going through. Harbin Electric is making false financial reports in its SEC filings. It is not the successful company making lots of money as reported, but it is an unsuccessful company making little or no money. The purpose is likely a pump and dump fraud. Now, if that is true, which I believe it is, does anyone think that there would be a buyout under those circumstances? I don't think anyone would.

    Thus, in summary, the issue for me is the reported financials, because it answers all other questions. For anyone really wanting to know the answer, the process is the same as usual. Do the work necessary to determine whether Harbin Electric is really making all the product it claims, really has all the customers it claims, really is making all the sales it claims, really is collecting all the money it claims, etc. If it is not, then it should be pretty obvious to anyone with common sense that the "alleged" buyout deal is not genuine either, but is merely to prop up the price for a pump and dump scam.
    Jun 24, 2011. 10:50 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Citron vs. Harbin: 5 Questions Shorts and Longs Should Be Asking [View article]
    Adam Gefvert:

    the chinese government, through state owned banks and other state owned companies, is probably the largest group engaging in dishonest practices itself.
    Jun 24, 2011. 10:29 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did China-Biotics Pay Its Debts? [View article]
    glen bradford:

    are you kidding me - you have the nerve to comment and then to make a comment like that? you repeatedly pump obvious frauds and now you are defending this fraud? Why are you commenting? Why does let you comment? In my opinion, you have repeateldy committed securities fraud, you should be charged, convicted, and serve an appropriate sentence, in my opinion.
    May 31, 2011. 12:47 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The End of CCME's Fairy Tale [View article]
    why would anyone ever believe Global Hunter or Northland? Star didn't say anything that I am aware of, they may be perpetrating the fraud, for all we know. They certainly got the stock at an incredible discount and got unbelievable terms. They could have shorted after they bought and locked in a quick, large profit.
    Mar 12, 2011. 08:36 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • CCME: A Good Deal Thanks to the Shorts [View article]
    I disagree completely. The article is clealry an attempt to pump the stock, like he has before, and like he has done with other fraudulent companies, such as DJSP.
    Feb 21, 2011. 05:24 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • China MediaExpress Holdings: 28 Days Later [View article]
    Read the Muddy Waters report as it will teach you how to do due diligence on these chinese companies. Unfortunately, your work shows no due diligence, just unsupported conclusory statements. CCME is an obvious fraud.
    Feb 14, 2011. 11:33 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Four Stocks That Can Enhance Your Portfolio [View article]
    Okay, here are some of my loose, disorganized notes:
    1. My main concern is: all of the articles that I found don’t reference CCME or its operating subsidiary as a competitor in this industry, while they repeatedly identify the 2 main competitors VisionChinaMedia and Towona, along with Bus-Online and CCTV, who apparently did some kind of joint venture. VisionChinaMedia trades as an ADR on a US exchange and its annual report identifies its competitors but doesn’t mention CCME or its operating subsidiary. Two additional concerns: (1) CCME in its financial statements fails to identify a single competitor. There seems to be a conflict between CCME’s representations of exclusive arrangements in cities where VisionChinaMedia claims exlusive arrangements but I would need to follow up on that. CCME leave the impression that it is the first and most dominant in this space, which appears not to be true. (2) the only article I could find on CCME’s operating subsidiary appears to represent it somewhat differently than CCME represents it today.
    For a comparison, VisionChinaMedia claimed total revenue of 120 million in 2009 and CCME claimed 95 million. VisionChinaMedia has other operations, such that CCME's revenue from just this business is probably larger. Thus, i would expect in ththe folloiwng articles to hear some mention of CCME.

    Notes, with cites to article

    Feb. 9, 2010 article – According to Reuters, Bus-online is currently China’s largest bus digital media and advertising company. Its owns China’s largest mobile television network, covering 32 major cities with more than $60,000 bus mobile TV Terminals. 2009 revenue was $46.07 million. See
    Look at CCME’s 2010 10k, says its revenues were $95 million for the exact same business and it doesn’t do any other business.
    Article with data through 2007: Towona, Bus online, and VisionChina are the leading providers of in-vehicle mobile television.
    Towona is the first audio-visual media company.
    Towona provides mobile television services on 80,000 television screens in 50,000 business that travel in 33 major cities within the country. Other mobile television provides including Chinese Television Media and Bus Online.
    October 2009 article: About VisionChina acquiring China’s Digital media group. Mentions competitors – CCTV and Bus-Online (refers to a joint venture between them) and Towona Media – but no mention of CCME or its operating subsidiary. Says VisionChina has 42.1% and DMG 8.1% of the Q1 2009 market, which is RMB 788 million. VisionChina had 120 mil revenue in 2009 according to their annual report. CCME claims $95 million in 2009 according to its annual report. Number don’t add up and why CCME not mentioned if it is so large as it claims. See

    Article dated October 15, 2009 about Towona. Mentions how, in terms of price performance of resources, Towona is superior to VisionChinaMedia and CCTV Mobile Media. Indicates that AS CCTV Mobile Media loses ground, Towona and VisionChinaMedia will remain as the two major rivals. No mention of CCME or its operating subsidiary as a competitor.
    Article dates 10-16-2009: article entitled “Great Changes Happening in China’s Mobile TV market”. Announces contract between Towona and Guangzhou public transit and radio & tv departments. Same quote from analyst as previous article about Towona and VisionChinaMedia being two rivals, with CCTV losing ground. No mention of CCME or its subsidiary. See
    1-28-2008 article. Talks about Towona and VisionChinaMedia being the major competitors in the market, entionas smaller Bus-online and its partnering with CCTV. No mention of CCME’s subsidiary. Remember takeover didn’t occur till mid-2009, so no CCME before June of 2009, but operating subsidiary should have existed. Of course, it was supposedly relatively small and has grown fast, but begs the question how, as seems to be competitive, if not saturated, market. Note that CCME never once in their SEC filings mentions any competitors, almost give the impression they are the first and dominate the market as a result.

    2. I contacted VisionChinaMedia. Off the record, verbally, I was told that they are very confident that China Express's numbers are not accurate, but I can't be quoted as to that. You might want to contact them to see what they tell you verbally, but don't quote me please.
    I was also told and informed by e-mail from IR for VisionChina, the following:

    "Helen Plummer, the company’s IRO I mentioned to you, is on vacation this week, but I received answers from her.

    As I thought, VISN does not provide any advertising on inter-city buses. All of VISN’s buses are city by city because each mobile subsidiary can only broadcast in each individual city, and the signal would not reach between cities. The long distance bus market, which is largely used by migrant workers, is extremely low end and different from the compay’s target markets. In addition, VISN’s content is real time- live broadcast which is unique to each city in which they operate.

    The company is familiar with China Media Express but does not compete with them.

    I hope this helps. Let me know if you need any additional information.



    Jessica Barist Cohen
    Director, Ogilvy Financial
    636 11th Avenue
    New York, NY 10036

    Her reference to live tv is important, because, if you read through China Express's docs, it looks like they are just playing video or DVDs, not playing live TV.
    Not sure how excited advertisers would be, or how much they would pay, to be on the playing of videos for very low migrant workers.
    Her reference to the distance was explained as meaning that there would not be much turnover of customers, like on the city buses, so exposed to far less people in the same amount of time, which is not attractive to customers.

    I still think they are a competitor, even though she says they are not. I think she says they are not a competitor because she doesn't think much of them and doesn't think they will be on what they view as the better city buses but will be only on the intercity buses, which they will not be on because it is not an attractive market.

    3. A press release by China Yida, who I have not looked at but who i believe may be a fraud just by looking at the parties involved, described the business of CCME's operating entity very differently than it describes itself. Of special import is the reference to the operating subsidiary having over 200 buses in 2008. CCME, on the other hand, claimed that it was on 15,600 buses by the end of December 2008 in its annual report of 2009. I understand some people could start making explanation that could logically square the two statements, such as Yida was just referring to the buses in one city, but I think that is stretching - if it was on 15,600 buses, Yida would be mentioning that, not being on over 200 buses in one city. .

    4. Problems with the parties involved and various other details.

    10-23-07 initial public offering consummated
    Goldstein Bolumb Kessler are initial accountants Paocb finds audit definciencies – such that firm did not obtain sufficient competent evidential matter to support its opinion on the issuer’s financial statements
    Pali Capital was the initial underwriter.
    Pali Capital is bankrupt. It was run corruptly.
    They got an underwriting discount of 7% of the gross proceeds., 4% held till completion of business combination.
    For $1000 received an ooption to purchase a total of 700,000 units at $10.00 per unit, exerciseable at $10.00, same terms as other warrants, expires in 5 years. Estimated fair value is $3.15 per nit..
    Maxim Group also was an underwriter
    Broker at Maxim convicted for getting kickbacks for pumping the stock.

    10-18-07 or 10-23
    Goldstein of Bulldog investments reports owning shares, about 14%. I think he is alright. he was just doing an arbitrage, as the company was a SPAC trading at a discount to net asset value, so when they decide to do a merger, he can opt out and collect the difference. Weiss Management, a later shareholder, is also okay and doing the same strategy.

    Isreal Englander, Millenium Management
    SEC charged with fraud
    Market timing mutual funds
    Created 100 new legal entities to hide their identity
    Bought 8.7% of the shares

    HBK reports owning 5.6%. Prosecuted by the SEC for short selling prior to getting shares in PIPES.
    Always watch out for PIPES - hedge funds, etc. getting shares and warrants at discounts to what they trade at. Various strategies for profiting - may pump and dump, may short and then use shares obtained to cover, thereby pocketing the spread.
    QVT Financial LP reports owning 5.13 (Dan Gold runs it, part of Deutsche Bank). saw a negative reference to them in pump and dump schemes, but didn't verify and don't know myself.

    Here comes some pumping:
    GEO investing article pumping TM Entertainment, a blank check company, purchasing china media
    GEO investing, if you look at their site, just seems to be pumping these chinese small cap companies - ones that did not IPO.

    5. Another problem I observed is that in the SEC filings, in the annual report i believe, the contracts with the bus operators call for the bus operators raising the fees for CCME from a minimum of 10% a year to a maximum of 30% a year. I certainly wouldn't want raises like that in my expenses each year in any business I owned.

    I observed other problems reading through their financial statements, but haven't documented or detailed them at this point.

    Frankly, I don't think the business is a good one even for the legitimate players. They don't own the buses, so they are at the mercy of whoever owns the buses, who can give the business to a competitor willing to pay more, can hire an independent contractor to do it, or can just start putting up the tvs themself and selling the advertising themselves or through others. Certainly doesn't sound difficult to do.

    In CCME's case, it appears to me that, at the very best, they have only a fraction of the revenue they claim. My guess is that, if they are on any buses, it is only a small fraction of what they claim. To the extent they are, i bet it is cheap tvs with cheap dvd or video players with cheap dvds or videos played. I would be very surprised if they have contracts with any of the large companies they claim - would love to see the contracts with contact information for someone at hte company who can confirm the deals.
    Jan 7, 2011. 11:58 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Two Investing Classics, Plus a Third Destined to Achieve That Status [View article]
    sorry, university faculty at Chicago ending up being millionaires by the time they retire is not some outstanding achievement and I am not sure that it makes their views on daily financial decisions worthy of study. I find most of them to be underachievers in the financial arena, particularly given their potential based on their abilities.
    As far as Burton Malkiel, you can find much better advice with Benjamin Graham's, The Intelligent Investor. Burton Malkiel is wrong with what he appears to be saying, that active investors can't beat the market (but then even he backtracks and agrees with that, sort of and then sort of not again, such that I am not sure what he is saying). Of course, mutual funds don't beat the market, they aren't incentivezed to, as they can only receive a percentage of assets under management. If mutual could only receive money based on a percentage of the returns they achieved, I think you would find a different story. In any event, Malkiel's book is almost worthless, in my opinion. The poor guy simply knows nothing about investing. The only thing I can agree with is that yes, if you are going to be a passive investor, putting money into an index fund can be a good idea (if the index is trading at a relatively low price). Of course, I would rather put in it Berkshire hathaway at the price it is presently trading at.
    Technical analysis is like astrology. It is a bunch of nonsense.
    Behavorial economics is tautologous - what economics is not behaviorial? However, it has nothing to do with technical analysis.
    Dec 25, 2010. 12:28 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • China New Borun: Born to Run or Destined to Fall? [View article]
    The way to analyze the work is to look at the facts, evidence and reasoning therefrom. Don't base your conclusions on a man's resume. And, certainly, don't base it on a grammatical error or a typo, unless your intent is to evaluate the person's editing skills not their investment analysis skills.
    Oct 21, 2010. 02:12 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AmTrust Financial Services: A House Of Cards? [View article]
    well, the author didn't provide any negative history on Pipoly and Saxon, he said the CEO of a company they previously were at stole money from the company. He didn't say that had anything to do with them.
    Also, this article seems to say that they suspect that the Luxemburg ceded losses are not consolidated, but the author failed to have the confidence to say that they actually know this is the case. So, the author is claiming not to know, but to be suspicious. I would rather actually know one way or another, especially before writing such an article.
    Dec 12, 2013. 04:14 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: What Exactly Is In Peter Vander Nat's Paper And Why Bill Ackman Is Wrong [View article]
    You said if I tried the product, I would find it of very high quality and beneficial. I Fred the product, I did not fid it of very high quality, nor did I find it beneficial. In fact, I found quite the contrary in both cases. Your prediction was empirically proven false. Case closed.
    Feb 25, 2013. 11:30 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife: What Exactly Is In Peter Vander Nat's Paper And Why Bill Ackman Is Wrong [View article]
    Bill ackman's case against herbalife is far, far different than you have portrayed. It is as if you are describing the strenghth of the u.s army, and concluded it depended on the ability of the medical staff to defend itself and then analyzed that one new, weakly nurse would have difficulty defending herself, and then concluded, therefore, that the us army was very weak.
    Feb 24, 2013. 05:10 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment