first, as you state, you were 100% wrong, so you should not be giving your opinions about doing due diligence. You don't know how to do it. There are plenty of ways to check up on a company besides just looking atth e business model. second, you constantly repeated the talking points of the fraudsters, you viciously and persistently attacked me, Muddy Waters, and others who pointed out CCME was a fraud, so there is plenty of reasons for me not to trust you. And, there are plenty of reasons for you to lie, but no reason for me to speculate which one might be the reason. Shorts don't doubt and and everything but, before they invest, they go about verifying the facts to make sure they are correct. At this point, after you have repeatedly lied, there is absolutely no reason to trust that you are telling thte truth. You could have easily verified the truth of muddy waters accusations, but instead you called them scumbags, liars and said they should go to jail. How could anyone trust you after that, when you had no basis to call them liars?
6 Stocks to Capitalize on China Trade Worries [View article]
CCME won't turn out in the future to be a fraud, they are a fraud now. That site you list is complete garbage, that guy appears to be a shill for the company, assisting in perpetrating this fraud. He certainly has no idea what ral due diligence is. Neither, it appears, do you.
Exposure to China: How to Play It Safe [View article]
You are continuing to make the mistakes that you said you made before. You are recommending these stocks without verifying their accuracy. The stock trading for more than a year is utterly meaningless. For example, you say that one company that claims a relationship with Black & Decker and, if it weren't true, Black & Decker would certainly have spoken up by now. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG! What you need to do is get direct confirmation from Black & Decker that the company's representations regarding its relationship with Black & Decker is accurate. If an appropriate person from Black & Decker confirms the relationship, and any supporting documents and third party confirmation are confirmed, then you can begin to say that it appears the company is legitimate and not fraudulent. You need to do your due diligence by doing those types of things, getting independent confirmation from multiple parties in multiple ways. And I am not talking analysts, investments banks, other investors or the like, I am talking about the people who do business with the company, suppliers, customers, etc.
U.S. Listed Chinese Stocks: Mistreated and Undervalued (Part 1) [View article]
It doesn't matter if Chinese companies are submitting false financial information on their SAIC filings with the Chinese Government? Sure, that is what I want to invest in, a chinese company filings false financial information with the government. Those are the people I should trust. Really now, what else do you want to sell me on?
Just One Stock: Hitching a Ride on Returns of 'Canada's Warren Buffett' [View article]
Are you paid to pump XL or do you hope your comment will drive the price higher. The reason I ask is because this commentary is about Fairfax, which you claim not to have heard of. Then, you claim to like XL capital better, but you obviously can't compare them if you know nothing about Fairfax. You appear to be both stupid (otherwise, you wouldn't be posting statements that make no sense) and corrupt.
Orient Paper: Much More Upside Ahead [View article]
You said buy during any downturn, you didn't say there was going to be any downturn and you didn't reference this issue. You are so full of baloney. I called your article the pump, now we see today a dump! Can you say, yes, sir, you are right again?
China New Borun: Born to Run or Destined to Fall? [View article]
Seems like the poster is providing an analysis. If you have facts, evidence or sound reasoning therefrom that shows anything in the article to be inaccurate or that provides a basis for a positive view of the company, this is a wonderful opportunity for you to present it.
Why Would Anyone Want to Own a Bank Stock? [View article]
If your question is not rhetorical, let me tell you. Because of views like yours, you can purchase some good banks at a reasonable discount to what they are worth. Due to the bank failures that you mention and that are anticipated to continue, the stronger banks that will not go bankrupt will have less competition. Cost of float is very low for some banks, in fact, at one bank, i saw it at .46%. Pretty good if you can obtain your raw materials almost for free.
High Conviction: A Well-Managed Chinese Small Cap in High Growth Mode [View article]
emagur: I was long ONP, woke up one day and saw the Muddy Waters report which immediately made me realize that they had done the due diligence that I should have and that my due diligence was poor. The clincher for me was the Rick Pearson Video on Youtube of his visit to ONP (Muddy Waters was on the same visit). Instead of the cutting edge, advanced technology paper mill that represented, the video shows old dilapidated, rundown equipment. Can verify it, but my own impression was that they had just staged the operations for the day. I sold out my position the same day as the MW report and seeing the Pearson video. After re-reading all the SEC filings and ONP's website, I found many problems and inconsistencies with ONP's own representations. I then shorted ONP. I believe that, at best, they have a very small manufacturing operations and/or resell paper. My own personal opinion, which I can't verify for sure, is that they aren't manufacturing any paper at all. My view on this is due to viewing the videos by Pearson and doug at wallstreetmedia.com. It appears to me that steps in the production process are completely missing and that was is being done there is staged for the day. I am not impressed with Eric Jackson's due diligence. In response to the MW allegations of embezzlement, Eric Jackson's response was that he checked with management and they verbally confirmed that all the money was in the bank account. My experience is that most theives deny they are stealing so I would like to do a little more than just ask them and get a denial before I conclude they are innnocent. Eric Jackson appears to have a contrary view and that causes me not to view highly his opinion, at least on this issue.
Orient Paper: Loeb's Not the Right Firm for the Investigation [View article]
prettyboyfloydm: No, I am not goading ad hominem attacks at all. I was long ONP. After I did my original due diligence (which I feel I did poorly at this point), I read all the promoters of the stock to find anything negative I missed to show I might be wrong. This includes Rick Pearson, Eric Jackson, Harbinger, Roth, etc. Most claimed to have visited and were highly complimentary of the company. Then I read the Muddy Waters report which concerned me greatly - I immediately realized that this was the due diligence I should have done and my due dililgence was poor. The clincher for me was the Rick Pearson video posted on youtube. ONP was presenting itself as a fast growing, cutting edge company operating more efficiently and effectively because of leading advanced technology. The video looked to me to show the oppositve - a small, antiquated factory working inefficiently with old, dilapidated equipement. Frankly, it was shocking to me. I sold my long position at a substantial loss. I then shorted the company. It appeared to me to be a certain fraud. Shocking as it may seem, it also seemed there was a large operation promoting companies like ONP who profit from these companies in one way or another. Some may be unknowing of any fraud, some may just be indifferent and not do their due diligence to know one way or another, and some may be co-conspirators. I don't know. But it does appear that a whole host of people come up in support. At the lowest level are posters and bloggers on sites such as this and yahoo. Many of them simply are inflammatory, making insults or shamelessly pumping the stock. Then there are the commentators like Doug from Wallstreetmedia.com, Rick Pearson, and Erick Jackson who cheerlead the stock with what they imply is good due diliigence but they fail to provide the type of verifiable facts and evidence or reasoning therefrom that good due diligence entails. Then there are the firms that deal directly with the company, the IR firms like Crocker, analysts like Harbinger and Roth Capital, investment banks, lawyers, accountants, and so on. So, anyway, if ONP is a fraud, it has a lot of support. My goal is to try to keep the focus on facts and evidence, particular that are verifiable, and sound reasoning therefrom. I think everyone should do their own due diligence and make their own conclusions. With the vast support of ONP but their failures to provide good information in my opinion, I have been trying to provide such information. Thus, I wrote two instablogs. One instablog took the information directly from ONP - from its own SEC filings, its website and its CFO - and showed the problems and inconsistencies that make the ONP story not believable in my opinion. As a result of my method, ONP could not complain about the source of the information - it was themselves. The second instablog looked at the video of ONP by the promoter Doug at wallstreetmedia.com. To an undiscriminating mind, the video might appear to help ONP's cause. I beileved that to a discriminating mind, the video was further evidence of the inconsistencies and problems with ONP so I provided the analysis. What I recommend is one review the evidence itself - ONP's SEC filings, its website, and the two videos by Rick Pearson and Doug and judge for themselves. A discussion using facts and evidence and sound reasoning is helpful. One using personal attacks and speculation are not helpful in my opinion. Rather than question me, I recommend that you question all those who are posting sites pumping ONP and making personal attacks and insults on others, without providing facts, evidence, or sound reasoning.
Orient Paper: Key Pieces of Evidence for Fraud [View article]
the problem here is that most of the comments here appear to be utilizing the logically flawed argument of 'ad hominen' or attacking the man. It is irrelevant if muddy waters or the author here are the devil themselves. The issue is whether ONP's representations are true. None of the negative comments here appears to produce one shred of evidence supporting ONP's representations. I suggest taking a look at ONP's website and their videos and their SEC filings. Forget about Muddy waters or this author and look at the inconsistencies and problems with ONP's own statements. On the video, made in 2007 according to the CFO (e-mail ONP for the date), ONP had 863 employees, 8 plants, and 9 production lines. Now, ONP claims to have 600 employees, 2 facilities and 8 production lines, except the CFO now says there are only 6 production lines - 4 legacy lines and 2 new digital photo paper lines. During the same time as this substantial reduction, ONP claims to have more then tripled revenues and quadrupled profits. Also, ONP claims to be changing the type of paper it produces frequently at the same time (a production lines cannot automatically start producing a different kind of paper). Thus, the alleged growth of ONP's revenues and net profit does not match its reported downsizing. Certainly, it is unlikely to have been done with r&d as ONP claims in its website that it has comprehensive research facilities but admits upon questioning that it has no r&d facilities. Additionally, ONP claims on its website and its SEC filings that it has a 37 member r&d team, but admits it has no r&d team - it just had several guys learning how to operate the two digital photo paper line. I recommend you do your homework, review the website, the video and the SEC filings and see if the story makes sense? It appears very difficult to reconcile ONP's own representations.
I was long ONP but changed my opinion after redoing my due diligence. I feel very fooled.
I find helpful any responses that contain attempts to provide information that is independently verifiable so that it can be checked out. This includes providing names, addresses and phone numbers in english and chinese of entities and people that can be contacted to verify.
'ad hominen' attacks, the latin name for logically fallacious arguments attacking the person, whether muddy waters, this author, or ONP, are not helpful. Facts that can be independently verified are helpful.
The End of CCME's Fairy Tale [View article]
first, as you state, you were 100% wrong, so you should not be giving your opinions about doing due diligence. You don't know how to do it.
There are plenty of ways to check up on a company besides just looking atth e business model.
second, you constantly repeated the talking points of the fraudsters, you viciously and persistently attacked me, Muddy Waters, and others who pointed out CCME was a fraud, so there is plenty of reasons for me not to trust you. And, there are plenty of reasons for you to lie, but no reason for me to speculate which one might be the reason.
Shorts don't doubt and and everything but, before they invest, they go about verifying the facts to make sure they are correct. At this point, after you have repeatedly lied, there is absolutely no reason to trust that you are telling thte truth.
You could have easily verified the truth of muddy waters accusations, but instead you called them scumbags, liars and said they should go to jail. How could anyone trust you after that, when you had no basis to call them liars?
6 Stocks to Capitalize on China Trade Worries [View article]
6 Stocks to Capitalize on China Trade Worries [View article]
Yongye: Another Chinese Investment Opportunity Beaten Down by Shorts [View article]
Yongye: Another Chinese Investment Opportunity Beaten Down by Shorts [View article]
Exposure to China: How to Play It Safe [View article]
U.S. Listed Chinese Stocks: Mistreated and Undervalued (Part 1) [View article]
Just One Stock: Hitching a Ride on Returns of 'Canada's Warren Buffett' [View article]
Orient Paper: Much More Upside Ahead [View article]
I called your article the pump, now we see today a dump! Can you say, yes, sir, you are right again?
Orient Paper: Much More Upside Ahead [View article]
China New Borun: Born to Run or Destined to Fall? [View article]
Why Would Anyone Want to Own a Bank Stock? [View article]
High Conviction: A Well-Managed Chinese Small Cap in High Growth Mode [View article]
I was long ONP, woke up one day and saw the Muddy Waters report which immediately made me realize that they had done the due diligence that I should have and that my due diligence was poor. The clincher for me was the Rick Pearson Video on Youtube of his visit to ONP (Muddy Waters was on the same visit). Instead of the cutting edge, advanced technology paper mill that represented, the video shows old dilapidated, rundown equipment. Can verify it, but my own impression was that they had just staged the operations for the day.
I sold out my position the same day as the MW report and seeing the Pearson video. After re-reading all the SEC filings and ONP's website, I found many problems and inconsistencies with ONP's own representations. I then shorted ONP.
I believe that, at best, they have a very small manufacturing operations and/or resell paper. My own personal opinion, which I can't verify for sure, is that they aren't manufacturing any paper at all. My view on this is due to viewing the videos by Pearson and doug at wallstreetmedia.com. It appears to me that steps in the production process are completely missing and that was is being done there is staged for the day.
I am not impressed with Eric Jackson's due diligence. In response to the MW allegations of embezzlement, Eric Jackson's response was that he checked with management and they verbally confirmed that all the money was in the bank account. My experience is that most theives deny they are stealing so I would like to do a little more than just ask them and get a denial before I conclude they are innnocent. Eric Jackson appears to have a contrary view and that causes me not to view highly his opinion, at least on this issue.
Orient Paper: Loeb's Not the Right Firm for the Investigation [View article]
No, I am not goading ad hominem attacks at all. I was long ONP. After I did my original due diligence (which I feel I did poorly at this point), I read all the promoters of the stock to find anything negative I missed to show I might be wrong. This includes Rick Pearson, Eric Jackson, Harbinger, Roth, etc. Most claimed to have visited and were highly complimentary of the company.
Then I read the Muddy Waters report which concerned me greatly - I immediately realized that this was the due diligence I should have done and my due dililgence was poor.
The clincher for me was the Rick Pearson video posted on youtube. ONP was presenting itself as a fast growing, cutting edge company operating more efficiently and effectively because of leading advanced technology. The video looked to me to show the oppositve - a small, antiquated factory working inefficiently with old, dilapidated equipement. Frankly, it was shocking to me.
I sold my long position at a substantial loss. I then shorted the company. It appeared to me to be a certain fraud.
Shocking as it may seem, it also seemed there was a large operation promoting companies like ONP who profit from these companies in one way or another. Some may be unknowing of any fraud, some may just be indifferent and not do their due diligence to know one way or another, and some may be co-conspirators. I don't know.
But it does appear that a whole host of people come up in support. At the lowest level are posters and bloggers on sites such as this and yahoo. Many of them simply are inflammatory, making insults or shamelessly pumping the stock. Then there are the commentators like Doug from Wallstreetmedia.com, Rick Pearson, and Erick Jackson who cheerlead the stock with what they imply is good due diliigence but they fail to provide the type of verifiable facts and evidence or reasoning therefrom that good due diligence entails. Then there are the firms that deal directly with the company, the IR firms like Crocker, analysts like Harbinger and Roth Capital, investment banks, lawyers, accountants, and so on.
So, anyway, if ONP is a fraud, it has a lot of support.
My goal is to try to keep the focus on facts and evidence, particular that are verifiable, and sound reasoning therefrom. I think everyone should do their own due diligence and make their own conclusions. With the vast support of ONP but their failures to provide good information in my opinion, I have been trying to provide such information.
Thus, I wrote two instablogs. One instablog took the information directly from ONP - from its own SEC filings, its website and its CFO - and showed the problems and inconsistencies that make the ONP story not believable in my opinion. As a result of my method, ONP could not complain about the source of the information - it was themselves.
The second instablog looked at the video of ONP by the promoter Doug at wallstreetmedia.com. To an undiscriminating mind, the video might appear to help ONP's cause. I beileved that to a discriminating mind, the video was further evidence of the inconsistencies and problems with ONP so I provided the analysis.
What I recommend is one review the evidence itself - ONP's SEC filings, its website, and the two videos by Rick Pearson and Doug and judge for themselves.
A discussion using facts and evidence and sound reasoning is helpful. One using personal attacks and speculation are not helpful in my opinion.
Rather than question me, I recommend that you question all those who are posting sites pumping ONP and making personal attacks and insults on others, without providing facts, evidence, or sound reasoning.
Orient Paper: Key Pieces of Evidence for Fraud [View article]
I was long ONP but changed my opinion after redoing my due diligence. I feel very fooled.
I find helpful any responses that contain attempts to provide information that is independently verifiable so that it can be checked out. This includes providing names, addresses and phone numbers in english and chinese of entities and people that can be contacted to verify.
'ad hominen' attacks, the latin name for logically fallacious arguments attacking the person, whether muddy waters, this author, or ONP, are not helpful. Facts that can be independently verified are helpful.
Disclosure: short ONP