Chimin Sang

Chimin Sang
Contributor since: 2009
You are only 22 -- you should be a lot more aggressive than this.
Well, I think the way to do more share buyback is to move the dividend money into share buyback. At the current rate, the Company is using $15m per year on dividend and the equivalent amount on share buyback. The Company could stop the dividend and instead spend $30m solely on share buyback until the stock price is above $4, at which point of time the Company could resume the dividend at 5% yield ratio.
The current float ADS count is 47.5m, $30m would remove about 10m ADS per year, and would lift the stock back to at least $4+ in no time.
To be fair, XIN is pretty good in making its stock holders feel good by action of dividend and stock buyback; It is the market that did not make XIN feel good by lowering its valuation and removing its capability to raise equity capital to fund its expansion.
I would be EXTREMELY surprised if XIN stops share buyback, though I wish XIN suspend dividend to fund more stock buyback, which is not a likely event either.
Despite all the disguise Lihua Internationl pulled, including faking SAIC reports, hiring dummy independent directors, and providing erroneous information to the SEC, it implodes under the pressure of its nonexistent business. Justice well served; I feel sorry for all the parties involved in it, the blind longs and fighting shorts to expose the fraud. The evilness and stupidity of the management wasted many people's resources. May it never happen again.
People should listen to Professor Bruce Greenwalds talk about the biggest mistake individual investors could make in light of the taget valuations Green River suggested -- When you hear these numbers, go take a shower --
Green River, Welcome to the hedge fund business. It is only the beginning of lessons for you.
Congratulations, suddenly you heard from everybody. It is very convenient but I feel sorry that you cannot fabricate it into your original article. You may send your request to SA editor though. Good luck.
Your information source is the management, which is biased. CEOs make you broke this way. Who is the global OEM? Did you hear from them directly? Did you hear from Texas Instrument? If I were Texas Instrument, of course I would check out the samples from UNXL, but look that is one year ago now, and you don't hear any progress? This company generates almost zero revenue for all its existence from when? Even Texas Instrument is a marginal player in the market, and you count on a marginal supplier to a marginal player? and zero response after one year?
Stop taking your one-sided information from the management and fool yourself. Investing does not work this way.
Well, I also made a check with this stock. It seems pretty funny -- all the long thesis took information from the company, and never bothered with
1) check up UNXL's patent portfolio, which is really easy to do.
2) check out its competitor's technology, which is also easy to do. Never heard of Cambrios, Atmel, huh?
3) check out the existing ITO technology. Technology improves, don't assume that the cost of mass production will not go lower.
The pumpers vastly underestimated
1) How easy one can propose a technology and
2) How difficult one is to consistently make qualified products.
And the company had 18 employees as of end the last year when they supposedly had the technology. They had 6 CXO/VP, and that left 12 employees to do the work, including accountants and office managers. How many people were doing the hard work of R&D for heaven's sake? And how could they compete against the real industrial leaders? R&D is not just to propose a technology. Million things can go wrong in printing such fine lines repeatedly and reliably. You think Apple's short supply is the laziness of Chinese workers? Do you know how difficult it is to get one component right in production? I have engineer friends scratch their heads to the last moment of mass production.
Not mentioning that the mass production takes place in Asia for heaven's sake, not in Texas. Oh, you do not know those manufacturer's names, DO YOU?
You got the timing well -- both names cratered under the weight of their own lofty valuation.
buy buy buy.
This site is dedicated to BVSN. Check it out folks.
Don't you think that the weather report came from a third party and the video came from the first party?
Yes, business may want less revenue, as long as they can cut even more cost with it. This is how downsizing works.
Even if the existing business does not get motivated, new business will get motivated. In this case, new Internet radio stations would be started to increase music supply. Those radio stations need to only cover the fixed cost, which would be very low to begin with, and they can only focus on getting audience without generating any revenue. Once they have enough audience, they can monetize the traffic. It is low risk business if without a minimum cap. The end result is over supply of Internet radio stations but very low level of monetization, which the music industry will hate to see.
So we do agree that there is a minimum cap.
A revenue-based fee structure without a minimum cap will depreciate the true value of the songs and motivate radio stations to generate lower revenue. The rate may change, but the payment structure, revenue-based with a minimum cap, is unlikely to change.
Great. That gives your credibility that you are independent.
You did mention that "the flat-panel television description can be attributed to both Basic LCD and LCD 2.0 screens, but not the LCD 1.0 picture frames", but you were not specific in pointing out that LCD was nothing liquid crystal display at all, which was still my impression after reading your article. My intelligence was not up to the level to dissociate LCD from the common definition of LCD and re-associate it with the new meaning FMCN puts on. If you had kindly pointed that out directly, it would have saved my guessing work.
The "art" of the FMCN's press release is that it never said directly that LCD 1.0 poster frames are not liquid crystal display, but it does not exclude the possibility that it was not liquid crystal display. This may look smart now, but this does not help portray an honest company image.
Did you realize that the LCD 1.0 poster frames were merely traditional poster frames when you wrote your article?
What I can make out of from the company press release, your article and your comments is that the LCD 1.0 poster frame is not made out of LCD, but poster frame.
The company never directly acknowledged that they are not LCD, but used the following names, all suffixed with device.
1. LCD 1.0 picture frame devices
2. traditional picture frame devices
3. 1.0 picture devices
When the company mentioned the same type of frames in its poster frame network, it used the word "traditional frames" without suffixing it with device.
I call this "miscommunication" in present continuing mode.
Where did you get this LCD 1.0 photo? It just does not look anything LCD but a common poster frame to me. First, it is too tall too wide and has too high resolution. Such LCD, if existed, would be very expensive. Second, such LCD would be very thick as well, and this photo shows a thin edge. Third, the surface is not glossy, not as reflective as the edge. It looks in every way like the non-digital poster frame you posted below it.
Why was this high-tech large-format high-resolution LCD 1.0 picture frame deployed in the second tier city without first deployed in the 1st tier city?
"The LCD 1.0 picture frame devices are included in the Company's LCD display network device count because, when the Company developed its LCD display network in Tianjin , Kunming and Shijiazhuang , it encountered difficulties in installing LCD screens or LCD 2.0 digital screens due to a lack of adequate power sources or other technical limitations, and therefore opted to use some traditional picture frame devices in these areas. Since the LCD 1.0 picture frame devices in these three cities were developed by the Company's LCD display network division, the Company has consistently included such devices as part of its LCD display network device count since it first began installing them. The LCD 1.0 picture frame devices also carry the Focus Media logo, unlike the traditional frames in the poster frame network. As disclosed in the Company's third quarter earnings release, the Company had 391,304 traditional frames available for use in its poster frame network as of September 30, 2011 . This number does not include the 29,878 1.0 picture devices in Tianjin , Kunming and Shijiazhuang as of the same date that are counted as part of the LCD display network."
-- this is from the company response... uhh... should we understand that this LCD does not need power to run? The text reads really fishy.
Congratulations to all ABAT believers for losing your shirt. If something is too good to be true, it probably is. If something sounds too fishy to be true, it probably is.
LOL, I would love to know where to find such a premium office building in Hongqiao. Hongqiao is the west suburban area. The land is much cheaper than downtown.
Google paid $650 per square foot for this Manhattan downtown building, cheaper than GSOL paid, even though they paid a very expensive 5% cap rate!
Curious: Where did you get VIX of VIX? Thanks.
Why don't you try, instead of question?
"Observations about fraudulent activities at other Chinese companies do not in any way indicate the same is going on at ABAT."
-- they don't indicate, they suggest.
Quite the opposite, let me ask you: do you know what is changed in the new Schedule 14A? I bet you have absolutely no idea.
Let me hint you: if you read the new Schedule 14A and compare it with the previous one, you will find that one important party is trying hard to distance itself from the transaction.
I would like to use this space to relate a plot that is taking place everyday in China, no kidding.
Basically the plot goes like this: You walk on the street, and suddenly someone walks fast past you and drops something, like a gold chain. Before you want to call the person that he dropped stuff, some one standing nearby jumps in front of you and picks up the gold chain. He sees you, and pulls you into the street corner. He tells you that now you see it, let's split the gold chain. At that time, the "loser" comes back and ask if you have seen the gold chain, the pickup guy tells him a negative answer or points him to the other direction. The "loser" clearly mumbles that the gold chain is worth 1000 RMB.
Now the split continues. One keeps the gold chain and the other gets compensation. The pickup guy won't be the guy has cash on him, he needs your compensation. If you have enough cash, he takes it and leaves. If you don't, he will be the guy to keep the gold chain but he needs a nearby bank to get the cash to give you. In order for him to trust you, he keeps something precious from you and goes to the bank. You hold the gold chain and wait.
End result: He never comes back.
Regarding the comments from those investors who believe that only "merger" and "Guanxi" matter, here are comments, which I think full of wit, from a friend.
As Asesnsio mentioned in his book, fraudsters will do just about anything to hold on to their public shell. These guys have stolen hundreds of millions $... They probably aren't going to "walk away". More likely, they are going to fight and hope that things turn around somehow. Which incidentally isn't what they would do if the buyout were imminent. In that case, that wouldn't have any need to release such ridiculous PRs, they would just quietly celebrate the fact that the shorts are about to become irrelevant.
As for the theory that HRBN is really ripping off the Chinese people and not you, I believe that is called a "confidence game".
I sure that they will be able to help you there when they want your business. Cheaper to get translator in China then in the US. Especially the last choice out of four may help you better.
Try another machine.
The link is here if you cannot find it.
Regarding the Company's response:
Do not demand loyalty when you are not loyal to truth yourself.
Market has spoken that it believes that ABAT has a very high chance of being fraud. Your thesis should really try to address the fraud issue. If you can convincingly prove that it is not a fraud, the price will go to your model price. Apparently the market believes that more than 80% chance that this one is a fraud.