Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Maxsoar  

View Maxsoar's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Actions Semiconductor Is Finally Moving, But Does It Have Legs? [View article]
    "the new chip in a new market is a tangible result from the R&D spend over the last few years."

    That I certainly agree. What we need is for these new products to show a lot more muscle than past new products in terms of sales.
    Jan 16, 2013. 05:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Actions Semiconductor Is Finally Moving, But Does It Have Legs? [View article]
    Kris,

    Trading a stock around earning announcement is always a hard bet to make. What I can tell you is, the stock seemed to go down more often than going up after earning release. You can review past several quarters to see for yourself. If I were going to buy more shares I would wait until seeing last quarter's earnings before making a decision. Also important is the management team's guidance for next earning and entire 2013 (if they are willing to say about it in the conference call).
    Jan 16, 2013. 05:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Actions Semiconductor Is Finally Moving, But Does It Have Legs? [View article]
    That's true. Of course they might not get anything at the end. I personally think these lawsuits will be dismissed, but who knows.
    Jan 16, 2013. 11:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Lesson Learned From Actions Semiconductor's Q2 2012 Results [View article]
    Yup finally. Let's see if has legs. I agree. That would be a wise move. However I would imagine that if they made a tender offer to get say 10M shares, the cost would be at least $2 probably. That still would be a wise investment for the company in my opinion.
    Jan 11, 2013. 02:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha In Chinese Companies' Privatization Spree [View article]
    Geo attacked, crashed, halted with T2 code (company disseminating information, and waiting for company's further response.
    Jan 11, 2013. 12:51 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Finally Time To Short U.S. Treasury Bonds? [View article]
    Jason,

    If anybody is to make any valuation on a company, he/she needs to base his/her valuation on a company's financial numbers. This is true for any company. Even big companies in the U.S. and other countries can provide grossly inaccurate financial and be frauds. So, there is simply no 100% guarantee that numbers in any company's financial are "facts" (and there are some grey areas in GAAP where it is even hard to present "fact" the best). In my articles I only said that I personally was confident in the company's reported financial numbers; that's why I personally invested in the stock and got a big blow to my portfolio this year due to my holding of LPH. Being "confident" in their financial do not mean that I think it is 100% guaranteed reliable. I made that point very clear in my article back in July (2nd last paragraph): http://seekingalpha.co...

    The reason I was much more confident in LPH than in LLEN was very simple. I have mentioned most of these points in my articles. Longwei did many things that LLEN did not do. The most important one was of course the tax reconciliation. This is a major, critically important indicator of a company's legitimacy that both supporters and naysayers of Chinese stocks put a lot of emphasis on. It was many attackers of Chinese companies who asserted that a fraudulent company definitely would not be able to complete SAT to SEC filings reconciliation. So, the fact that Longwei did complete it with great details and supporting photo copies of original documents naturally convinced many investors including me that the company is indeed legitimate. The logic is very simple:

    Let fraudulent company be A, and completing tax reconciliation be B. What everybody said was: if A then Not B
    So, the reverse logic must stand by reasoning rule: if B then Not A

    Nobody could clearly point out things that were not right in the tax reconciliation (at least not I've heard of) until Geo's report said that Longwei should not have paid all its income tax through Taiyuan Longwei subsidiary (which I personally do not know if this claim of Geo is 100% true under local tax code. Maybe Longwei did consolidate all taxes of its subsidiaries into Taiyuan Longwei).

    Also, I did not recall LLEN publishing a detail appraisal report of any of its subsidiary online for public to view.

    Apparently, as things look right now, the only slim chance of Longwei's financial statement being not reliable in my assessment at that time can certainly hit. If it is proven true at the end, it will surely be a new and very painful lesson I learned as an investor.
    Jan 10, 2013. 05:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Finally Time To Short U.S. Treasury Bonds? [View article]
    Actually, TBF will be a hedging mechanism for people with variable debts. However, interest coverage ratio is normally not 1:1. You need to be very careful about calculating how much shares of TBF you need to buy to hedge your debt obligation.

    If you have fixed income investments, it is not truly a hedge because you will lose if interest rate drops.
    Jan 10, 2013. 02:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is It Finally Time To Short U.S. Treasury Bonds? [View article]
    Ian,

    I don't know. I truly felt that the fundamental fair value of the stock basing on its financials were $6. Needless to say, I personally felt confident in their financial statements with those strong measures the company completed and other known factors. The surprising information and data presented by Geo of course now seriously challenge the accuracy of the numbers in their financial reports. I am as clueless as everybody else right now and am just waiting to see how the company respond.
    Jan 10, 2013. 02:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Simply Put, Longwei Petroleum Worth $6 Or More Per Share [View article]
    Digjoe,

    I'd like to help but should restrain myself from giving you legal advice in such situation. Best,

    Kevin
    Jan 8, 2013. 12:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Simply Put, Longwei Petroleum Worth $6 Or More Per Share [View article]
    Maybe, I just don't know at this point and am still puzzled by many things. The company's last news release sounded like that all Geo's points were invalid.
    Let's just hope that we'll have much better feeling and clue about how much of Geo's accusations hold merit next week.

    For now, I just don't have a strong clue.

    Kevin
    Jan 6, 2013. 12:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Simply Put, Longwei Petroleum Worth $6 Or More Per Share [View article]
    Dear reader,

    Well if that's the case I surely will deeply regret investing in this stock and admit my mistake.

    However, as you can see the company completely denied all allegations in today's news release and said that they would release more detailed rebuff soon. Not that this simple fact let me think they are totally legitimate, but at least it tells me that the company, its IR firm, auditor, and legal counsels are working together and doesn't look like giving up. I have seen quite some cases in which the shorts were proven mostly right, such as the ones that Geo listed in its article, but I have also seen some in which shorts were proven wrong, or at least could not substantially maintain their grand fraud thesis at the end. Some examples are HRBN, FMCN, EDU, and QIHU.

    So, at this point I am waiting for more statements and/or supporting materials coming out from the company to hopefully determine which side is correct (or maybe neither side is totally correct and the truth lies somewhere in between).

    I would agree that Geo's attacks against the company are pretty strong and that's maybe why it takes the company time to compose a thorough response.

    Kevin
    Jan 4, 2013. 11:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Longwei Petroleum: The Most Brazen China-Based U.S. Listed RTO To Date [View article]
    Unemon,

    I think that my intent of the comment was very clear. I had no intention to play denial and withstanding of the company's fair value if the company is indeed a fraud, or mostly a fraud. However, as a human being I think it is only fair that we hear what the company has to say about allegations that people throw on them before judging if these allegations hold grounds. As I have listed in my comment several things just doesn't make sense to me and many other investors I believe assuming all Geo's claims, especially the "no business running in facilities" are true. Don't you think as a judge you have to give the defendant at least a chance to respond before making a rule? As you said the company seemed to respond to two of your "concerns" - the business license and the capacities of their facilities (in a light way I have to say, maybe they'll also address that point more in their response to Geo's article). It is only fair that we at least hear what they say about Geo's allegations.

    Secondly, honestly no I do not have time to read all your posts on message boards. I read quite some with my limited time and thus saw 4, 5 things you said. No disrespect but in my opinion Geo Investing's points are in magnitudes higher in importance in relative to shareholders' claims than the "flags" you raised assuming all are true. So, at this point I am much more interested to hear their responses to Geo especially in regards to their business activities and revenue.

    I suggest that we see the company's response before making premature discussions here (if only for the sake of having more contents to discuss).

    Last but not least, I am not in any way associated with the company. That I can tell you for 100% certain. I am only a public investor and analyst. I think the "official supporting documents" - the ones with the auditor and/or government/certified professional agencies' endorsements that the company published to prove its legitimacy were extremely strong and convincing. So, if the company indeed grossly mis-represented its financial status multiple official entities have had all contributed in putting out these false numbers and information in documents. That in itself is also unthinkable to me. Seriously, have you seen any past fraud Chinese companies that published so much signed documents from tax agencies, appraisal firms, and commerce department? I cannot recall any.

    Also, if memory serves me right the CFO who lives in Florida said in a conference call that he was in company sites almost half of the time in 2012 and have seen everything. So, if the company is a total scam and has minimal revenue as Geo claims ... I almost cannot bear to imagine what will happen to him.

    Again I am not trying to totally defend the company or my previous opinion, I am just saying very honestly that many pieces of information from both sides do not reconcile. My mind is in split mode right now ... seriously.

    Best,

    Kevin
    Jan 3, 2013. 08:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Longwei Petroleum: The Most Brazen China-Based U.S. Listed RTO To Date [View article]
    Bon,

    I'd wait until I see the company's first response before spending more time guessing here. The trading hault code is T1, which means that pending material news out, which implies that the company may be working on some comprehensive responses to be published soon. Just for the sake of fairness of debate and contents for discussion we should wait until we see more information.

    Kevin
    Jan 3, 2013. 06:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Longwei Petroleum: The Most Brazen China-Based U.S. Listed RTO To Date [View article]
    Dear Sir,

    I certainly will feel sorry to believe in the company if it is proven indeed materially mis-informed the public as Geo suggests. As a public investor and writer, I can only base my judgment on available public information at the time of my writing, and all publicly available information until very lately all showed a strong and good business in my opinion (you certainly can disagree with me, but if you truly had very different opinions about the public information I represented in my article I believe you probably would have said so at that time).

    The situation of course has changed after Geo Investing published this article today showing their extensive investigative work (if we believe the integrity of their work), which, based on my knowledge, is definitely in the area of material non-public information. At this point the two completely different stories painted by the company and Geo Investing both have some "issues" to fully convince me. So, to be fair, I am waiting to see what the company responded hopefully tomorrow to hopefully have strong feeling of which side to believe.

    Kevin
    Jan 3, 2013. 03:06 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Simply Put, Longwei Petroleum Worth $6 Or More Per Share [View article]
    Blue, see my comments to Geo's article here:

    http://seekingalpha.co...

    I myself is waiting to see what the company responses. The two totally different stories painted by the company and Geo Investing both have "problems" to me at this point.

    Kevin
    Jan 3, 2013. 02:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
255 Comments
189 Likes