Seeking Alpha

Trade Star's  Instablog

Trade Star
Send Message
Finance professional focused on healthcare and technology. 15yrs of personal investing experience. 10+yrs of professional financial services experience and securities analysis within a bulge bracket investment bank and within a healthcare company. Disclaimer: Articles, comments and referenced... More
  • Navigating Your Investment Through Uncertain Times. NQ Mobile, A Near-term Roadmap 28 comments
    Dec 2, 2013 9:26 AM | about stocks: EDU, ONP, NQ

    For long and short investors in NQ Mobile (NYSE:NQ), the question arises as to what investors should expect next and how to spot warning signs as they develop. If you are a long investor, is there a pathway available to NQ in order to emerge successfully as a viable long term growth story? Are they on that path? If you are a short investor, what multitude of potential events may qualify as a sufficient catalyst for a material devaluation or delisting? Is it already happening? The purpose of this article is to examine prior examples of alleged and actualized fraud / business wrongdoing, predominantly those uncovered by Muddy Waters (NYSE:MW), and attempt to lay out a framework for investors to determine the likelihood of an outcome positive to their respective investment thesis. This article will not address valuation, accounting concerns, nor any of the issues raised by Muddy Waters. Until the audit results are produced, the long and short argument will continue to be a he said / she said exercise and can be argued elsewhere. Instead, we will look at management actions in prior cases of alleged fraud or business wrongdoing and attempt to understand the decision making process of the rightly from wrongfully accused.

    Typical Responses to Accusations of Fraud / Wrongdoing

    For most Chinese companies accused of fraud and listed on US exchanges, the standard responses to allegations of fraud / wrongdoing can be lumped into the following general categories.

    Response 1. Company ignores allegations and refuses to comment on allegations. If the share price impact is minimal, business goes on as usual. If the share price impact is material, the company may continue to ignore those allegations, experiencing material price declines or see Response 2.

    Response 2. Company addresses allegations in a short letter or series of letters / responses to allegations and attempts to carry on as usual. If the share price continues to be impacted, the company may promise a more detailed rebuttal but instead goes dark, senior management / directors leave, and or the company fails to maintain listing standards, or see Response 3.

    Response 3. Company address allegations in a series of letters/presentations and conference calls. Special committees are formed, audits are performed. Return of shareholder value may be enacted through buybacks, dividends or sale of company. The Company continues to vigorously defend its reputation until facts are revealed via audit or allegations of fraud are realized as the company is unable to continue its obfuscation.

    Case Study Parameters

    The universe of potential examples is significant. In order to simplify this analysis so that it's as relevant to readers as possible, this article focuses acutely on management responses exhibited in Response 2 and Response 3 categorizations and will draw heavily on cases involving Muddy Waters and their efforts in attempting to identify and expose fraud. Additionally, the case studies will focus on the period between initial allegation and ultimate audit result or delisting / trading halt, whichever comes first. Please note, due to the small sample size and focus on Muddy Water cases, there is a significant risk of selection bias. As such, this exercise is by no means meant to be a definitive resource.

    Case Studies

    Response 2, selected case studies - China MediaExpress Holdings (OTCPK:CCME), Duoyuan Global Water (DGW), Rino International (OTC:RINO), Longtop Financial (NYSE:LGF)

    CCME Case Study

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    Observations - After the initial allegations by Citron and MW, the company's response and actions to defend legitimacy were fairly weak. Within 6 weeks of the initial MW allegations, CCME trading is halted and eventually delisted.

    DGW Case Study

    1. 4/4/11 MW initiates coverage with a Sell rating
    2. 4/6/11 CFO resigns, Board of Directors forms special committee to investigate MW claims. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden) appointed as counsel. Shares never recover and trade as a penny stock, from a pre MW allegation price of ~$7.00/sh.
    3. 5/4/11 Four (of six) directors resign, and new members to the BOD, board committees and special investigation committee appointed. Departing directors raised concerned w/management's level of cooperation in the special investigation. Skadden withdraws from special committee as of 4/21/11. Baker & McKenzie appointed as new counsel
    4. 5/20/11 SAM Sustainable Asset Management AG discloses liquidation of position (previously owned 10.25% of company)
    5. 7/02/11 DGW announces delay in filing for 20F
    6. 7/20/11 DGW announces further delay in filing for 20F
    7. 1/25/12 DGW delists from NYSE

    Observation - As soon as senior management departs, share price never recovers. Special committee auditor resigns within a month of allegations.

    RINO Case Study

    1. 11/10/10 MW initiates Sell
    2. 11/11/10 RINO to provide detailed response upon internal review. Still expects to release 3q financials on 11/15/10 and conference call on 11/16/10. No Q&A will be provided on MW allegations
    3. 11/15/10 RINO releases 3q financials
    4. 11/16/10 RINO postpones 3q conference call
    5. 11/17/10 RINO shares halted until Nasdaq satisfied with additional information requested
    6. 11/18/10 RINO BOD determines 2008 & 2009 financials as unreliable.
    7. 12/2/10 Nasdaq delists RINO due unreliable financial reports, failure to enter certain previously disclosed contracts, and failure to respond to Nasdaq staff requests for information

    (click to enlarge)

    Observation - Responses by management were practically non-existent. Allegation to delisting took less than a month. Shares permanently collapse within 2 weeks of allegations as RINO delays earnings conference call and is unable to address Nasdaq concerns

    LGF Case Study

    1. 4/26/11 Citron initiates sell rating
    2. 4/27/11 LGF announces it will release 4q and FYE financial results on May 23, 2011. Declines to comment on market rumors
    3. 4/28/11 LGF announces doubling of previously announced repurchase plan to $100M, hosts conference call to dispel rumors
    4. 5/9/11 Citron release additional report on LGF
    5. 5/10/11 LGF releases brief response to Citron claims
    6. 5/17/11 LGF Shares halted pending announcement
    7. 5/19/11 LGF announces delay in 4Q and FY financials
    8. 5/23/11 LGF Announces Resignation of Independent Auditor (D&T) and CFO, Initiation of Independent Investigation, SEC Inquiry and COO Appointment. Auditor resigns due to discovered fraud and interference by management during audit process

    (click to enlarge)

    Observation - LGF response to Citron claims were delayed and generally weak. Trading in LGF shares halted 3 weeks after initial allegations. Delay in announcing financials and interference with auditors by management key to auditor departure and share halt. Auditors depart within 3 weeks of allegations.

    Response 3, case studies - Orient Paper (NYSEMKT:ONP), Sino-Forest (TRE), New Oriental Education (NYSE:EDU), and Focus Media Holdings (NASDAQ:FMCN).

    ONP Case Study

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    Observation - ONP offered a spirited and immediate response to MW allegations. An independent investigation was not instituted until a month later, but was welcomed by the market. Share price climbs as high as pre-MW levels prior to releasing audit results. Audit takes ~3.5 months from start to finish. Interestingly enough, the last negative written report by MW was released on 7/22/10. A full 4 months before the completion of the audit. There have been no MW reports since.

    TRE Case Study

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    Observation - Initial response by TRE was spirited and included multiple responses and conference calls to address investor and MW concerns. A lack of a share buyback (company or management) was seen as disappointing. An investigation by the OSC and the subsequent loss of confidence by Paulson was a critical blow to TRE's share price. E&Y continued to be TRE's auditor for an additional 9 months before resigning. Fraud allegations to share halt took 2.5 months, due to the difficulty with auditing TRE's physical assets and the lack of cooperation by management.

    EDU Case Study

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    Observations - EDU's defense was fast and furious. Immediately after the allegations, EDU responded to MW's allegations with a short rebuttal, formation of a special committee and auditor (E&Y) and a management repurchase of $50M. In addition, a special dividend declared on 4/17/12 was paid out on 9/29/12 as planned. Shares recovered as much as 74% of their value prior to disclosure of audit results. The audit itself took 2.5 months from announcement of special committee. There have been no more MW reports since the original report.

    FMCN Case Study

    (click to enlarge)

    (click to enlarge)

    Observations - Similar to EDU, FMCN adopted an aggressive response to MW with lengthy rebuttals, a conference call to directly address the allegations, a management buyback (as a block trade no less), and a special committee to investigate MW's claims. Share price recovery was rapid, with FMCN trading as high as pre-MW allegations for brief periods of time prior to the audit results. The audit itself took 1.5 months to complete and was an audit of their screen placements, not an accounting one. MW research updates post audit have been minimal.

    So what are some of the common attributes of Frauds vs. Wrongly Accused?

    Based on the sample of case studies presented, it appears that most frauds collapsed under scrutiny within 1.5 months, if not weeks. All share halts and de-listings were precipitated by weak responses to allegations, failure to respond to regulatory inquiries and or a fairly rapid departure of senior management or special committee members. The sole exception to this trend appears to be TRE, which might have been able to maintain its fraud longer due to the difficulty of auditing its assets, but was ultimately unable to respond to repeated OSC demands. In contrast, exonerated companies responded aggressively to allegations with detailed responses and / or conference calls to address fraud allegations as well as engaging in share repurchases (company and or management) / dividends, continuing normal business operations and filing financials on a timely basis.

    While the formation of a special committee to audit the company's financials and business practices was considered a positive, the retention of those board members and positive cooperation with senior management, auditor and regulatory inquiries appeared to be the biggest factors in terms of a company maintaining its equity listing and standing. Interestingly enough, investments by major stakeholders as a vote of investor confidence appeared to be generally positive although slightly mixed due to TRE's institutional interest and subsequent collapse and EDU's institutional interest reductions by major stakeholders. It is notable that with exception to TRE, all realized frauds had zero participation by institutional investors.

    It's worthwhile to note that as time passes and no company specific flags emerge, the share prices of accused companies generally stabilize within the first few weeks - month of trading, and slowly climb back to pre-MW levels. Specifically, during the pre-audit completion phase of investigation, share price recovery of innocent companies rose to as high as 75-100% of their pre-allegation prices. Even LGF and TRE (the longer lived frauds), saw recoveries of as much as 90% and 50% of share price respectively, before ultimately succumbing to exposed fraud.

    Below is the infamous playbook characterized by MW and utilized by all Chinese frauds and exonerated companies. Interestingly enough, the playbook NQ seems to be playing follows more closely to those companies exonerated of fraud / misconduct, than busted for fraud / misconduct.

    (click to enlarge)

    What does it all mean for NQ?

    The Long Case:

    While the jury is still out in terms of whether or not NQ will ultimately be cleared of all wrong doing, the actions the company has taken thus far have overwhelmingly placed it in the camp of the wrongfully accused. The level of transparency and cooperation NQ has exhibited by inviting investors and banks comprehensive access to diligence the company, verify channel relations and vendors, and provide an open canvas for anyone curious about the Chinese and Global mobile market have been unprecedented. In addition to such openness, the company is currently exercising its $35M repurchase plan, with management committing itself to purchasing an additional $3M in shares from personal funds. This $3M is on top of the $2M that management purchased in 2012 as well as the voluntary lockup management has been engaged in since last year. Lastly, the company continues to maintain the trust and confidence of its auditor, PWC, as evidenced by NQ's recent 3q earnings release, cash verification efforts, and pre-MW bond offering.

    While the critical timeframe for guilty companies unraveling appears to be within the first 6 weeks of allegation, completion of the audit is still the gold standard for a clean bill of health. Based on the case studies presented, it appears that results from the audit may take as little as 2 months to as long as 4 months to complete. Assuming no flags are raised there is a strong possibility of share price appreciation to the $18-$25 range (75%-100% of Pre MW allegation share price) in the next 1-3 months (ie pre-audit). Until the audit is complete, the key things to look out for are the retention of senior management and board members, and continued transparency and cooperation with investors and auditors. Failure to maintain any of the above actions would be a major red flag for long investors and a likely rapid descent in share price, with little (if any) advance warning to investors. Lastly, even if fraud or business wrong doing is discovered, it's difficult to say what the economic impact, if any, to the company will be. Will it be penalties, a complete unwinding of the company or a simple requirement for more disclosures? It's impossible to say and beyond the scope of this discussion. I will note however, if none of the red flags emerge before the completion of the audit, it typically signifies management belief that the company is innocent of all wrong doings or at worst, guilty of a survivable infraction.

    Please note, I specifically excluded the following cases from this discussion: Spreadtrum Communications - MW issued a negative letter on the company instead of a full report. Olam International - the impact by MW was minimal and short lived. Qihoo 360 was only a negative tweet by MW and quickly dismissed. Including any of those 3 cases would significantly bolster the Long argument.

    The Short Case:

    The short case is fairly straight forward. Should any of the red flags identified as warning signs materialize, you should maintain your short bias. If the company appears to be nearing completion on its audit, you may want to consider covering your short position and possibly re-entering your short position post audit results, depending on outcome. In both ONP and EDU, there were material run-ups in share price just prior to audit announcements. Additionally, as discussed in the Long Case, it is unclear what damages, if any, could arise from the audit. It's worth noting that delisting and bankruptcy in many of the fraud cases occurred in part due to the existing leverage in those companies and subsequent lack of assets to sustain that leverage. NQ's leverage can still be supported by the verified cash balances at Standard Charter. The excess cash on the balance sheet alone would imply a floor valuation in the low single digits. Lastly, any short bias post audit should be closely monitored. It is not clear how long MW maintains coverage post initial allegation. ONP's written coverage ended before the audit results were even released. EDU's written coverage consisted of only 1 formal report. FMCN written coverage effectively ended 1 month after the last audit.

    Note: Charts and historical prices per yahoo finance, google finance and quotemedia.com. Historical events based on company press releases, sec filings (sec.gov), prnewswire.com, Muddy Waters Research muddywatersresearch.com/research/ and google searches. The events listed in the case studies are meant to be indicative of corporate actions but not comprehensive due to a lack of information available for many of the delisted and foreign entities.

    Disclosure: I am long NQ. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Additional disclosure: Please note, due to the small sample size and focus on Muddy Water cases, there is a significant risk of selection bias. As such, this exercise is by no means meant to be a definitive resource but more of a guide as to potential outcomes to your investment.

    Themes: long-ideas Stocks: EDU, ONP, NQ
Back To Trade Star's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (28)
Track new comments
  • KarlShen
    , contributor
    Comments (135) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for putting this together. It is good to see some historical actions taken by guilty/innocent companies and compare them to NQ. I think another big factor for the long case was being able to release financials on time.

     

    On a side note, it is a bit mind boggling that NQ is still releasing all these new business deals with large carriers in light of the allegations against it. It also had carriers come out and affirm their relationship publicly which is another great sign
    2 Dec 2013, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I think it adds credence to my thesis that NQ is behaving exactly like the falsely accused (edu, fmcn, onp). Thes score card section I included in the analysis shows it very clearly how frauds behave and how the innocent behave. I think if we can get to mid december without any major flags, then we should see NQ to the completion of the audit. Every fraud that MW found collapsed within 6 weeks as thats long enough for the auditors/special committee to get 50-70% of what they need to determine if there are material problems to the company. Thats why by week 4-6, you see so many resignations by management and board members.
    2 Dec 2013, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • Bobc14171
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    thanks for help. Your Article should be posted ahead of some other junk posted here. You bring up great case studys and facts. More than MW's 81 page un-proven report. Again thanks as allways.
    8 Dec 2013, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • Shareholders Unite
    , contributor
    Comments (3453) | Send Message
     
    It's a very good article and a new and more thorough/systematic perspective on differences and similarities in reactions relate to outcomes.

     

    TRE seems to be the outlier, and that's hardly surprising, considering the fact how difficult it was to correctly audit their resources.

     

    While there are no iron clad guarantees, but this is another element that can raise the comfort levels of NQ longs at least a little more. Thanks for this.
    2 Dec 2013, 10:56 AM Reply Like
  • Justin Giles
    , contributor
    Comments (1884) | Send Message
     
    tradestar2012,

     

    Excellent article! It's a shame that it didn't get picked up by SA. I'm looking forward to many great articles from you. Have a good one!
    2 Dec 2013, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • haggerston_station
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the article. In the case of EDU and FMCN, do you recall if they had early institution buying and on the ground investigation such as Toro and Chinarock Capital? Seems like this is a big plus for NQ.
    2 Dec 2013, 11:30 AM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » EDU actually had institutions reducing their holdings (13 filers). FMCN had 1 13 filer, the chairman, buy $11M in stock. Net institutional interest (ie those who did not file 13s) was down for both. I was only referring to those who filed 13f/gs

     

    Neither of them had a resource like Toro doing on the ground DD and reporting back to retail investors. However, I do get the sense that EDU and FMCN had higher institutional interest than NQ. NQ's pre-MW institutional interest was tiny. That might be why Toro has been so engaging with us retail folks.
    2 Dec 2013, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • lj2013
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    What a great article, informative and non-biased. I'm sure many investors have been looking for this kind of information on the internet in order to compare NQ to other companies that were targeted by MW. You did a wonderful job to put everything into one article. Wish it was showing up in headlines so more people can see it.
    2 Dec 2013, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • quantumvibes
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    Tradestar - Terrific debut article! It's informative and helps bring additional, balanced context to the current situation. Like others, I appreciate your ongoing observations about NQ as they tend to stick to the facts as well as incorporate a thoughtful analytic approach to arriving at your conclusions. I hope there are more articles to come.
    2 Dec 2013, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Mountainbiker
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Bravo! Good analysis of potential outcome! Thanks!
    2 Dec 2013, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • olivom
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    Such a great article. I wish SA would push more articles that base their perspectives on facts like this one instead of the extremely biased ones they do publish.
    2 Dec 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • roxron9
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Good factual article tradestar: Few things which stand out for me in case of NQ vs all the other names in your analysis:
    1. 13G Filings in middle of all these allegations, the investor base got much stronger;
    2. Cash confirmation by institutional investors and cash movement by the company; and
    3. On time earnings release and conference call by NQ

     

    Also, it will be interesting to see, if given a clean chit, will the company just reach 75%-90% of it's pre allegations valuations in near term or given the newly found institutional investor base, hyper growth and ever increasing short interest, will the share price performance will be very different than FMCN or EDU.
    2 Dec 2013, 08:11 PM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » roxron9, I think with all of the cases of alleged fraud, short interest increased significantly. NQ might be a bit more shorted, but I would think FMCN and EDU were shorted to the max. One example you might want to look at is SPRD. Hary2012 on stocktwits put this chart together that shows a short squeeze on SRPD right after the initial MW attack. http://bit.ly/1begW7F

     

    So I suppose potentially, NQ could follow a similar trend. I just figured a range of 75%-100% was a bit more conservative. Shorts may not agree with my assessment, but I was trying to be as impartial as possible. Likely to a fault. Theres plenty of additional supporting arguments for the long case that I left out.
    2 Dec 2013, 09:34 PM Reply Like
  • roxron9
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    In period after the allegations: FMCN short interest went from 5m to 13 m and EDU went from 6 m to 16 m. Incase of NQ it went from 12 m to 14 m now. Can observe that in case of NQ there was a short build up into the MW attack, which was not that evident for other names.
    2 Dec 2013, 10:48 PM Reply Like
  • wayne0708
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    Nice piece of writing there based on positive comments here. Just a suggestion for a different perspective in your future articles, you might want to include some charts. How about super impose charts of conpanies that were falsely accused by shorts like MW and Citron to see how price patterns play out over time so that an avg investors will get better understand of price action of stocks like $NQ and most importantly will b better with handling their emotion through all ups and downs prior to reaching the ultimate bull target.
    Just let me know if you need help in charting.
    BTW. I have no positions in $NQ (long or short). Based on current price pattern, I choose to wait on the side line.
    3 Dec 2013, 07:50 AM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I thought about that, but to be honest, getting historical data for delisted companies is not easy. Additionally, most frauds blow up within 3-4 weeks of accusation, so theres not a ton of chart data that would be helpful to NQ investors. All the falsely accused companies, I have included charts for. Usually whatever google finance or yahoo had (ie daily or weekly charts). I'm not a very good chartist, so I tried to keep the charts simple and just included an annotated timeline so people can see significant events to understand generally what is going on with the company.
    3 Dec 2013, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • LT-Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    I'd be interested to hear your take on what the exact scope of the NQ audit might be and what that means for how long it might take for NQ (within the 1.5 - 3.5 month range indicated based on your case studies) noting we are just over 1 month in. Also, do you think there is any possibility for partial disclosure of audit results as they work through.

     

    I don't think they will look into MW market share or AV unsafe claims. the level 2 cash / SAIC financials question looks to be a quick formality.

     

    I think they will need to look at where the cash balance (that MW claimed was not real) actually came from. This is part and parcel of the allegation that that YDT is a related party producing fictitious revenue.

     

    Personally, I think these are the only two questions the audit needs to focus on. Question is how long will it take to verify.

     

    I think they should be able to piggy back off PwC's prior work and perform more of an robustness assessment / error check rather than start the whole thing from scratch which should be easy given PwC is still standing by them.

     

    In any case note how EDU phrased their independent audit conclusions, "no significant evidence that re: claim XYZ". This suggests they don't have to perform a full forensic audit, but one which has a high confidence level.

     

    3 Dec 2013, 02:23 PM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I think they will investigate the most serious of MW's allegations.

     

    1. YTD relationship plus verification of revenue processing
    2. Cash verification (trace origins of cash to make sure its from NQ vs from some phantom rich benefactor in China)
    3. test of ex-china revenue sources + AR test for aging
    4. make sure M&A transactions are for real assets and determine where issued shares stand
    5. confirm VIE structure was valid in xferring cash from holdco to subsidiary

     

    That said, I would not be surprised if NQ's management team asks for D&T to investigate every item on MW's list. If theres one thing I really admire about NQ, its their commitment to answering each and every question presented.

     

    I'm not an accountant, so I'm guessing here, but I would think they would need to see multiple billing cycles to test the current and expected cash and AR collections. That would apply for both YTD and ex-china revenues. I also do not think D&T will rely on a ton of PWC's work as they are trying to do an independent audit and why take short cuts when you can charge for billable hours.

     

    I do not think they will release audit results in parts as many of the items tie back to cash so its difficult to release news piecemeal if things are contingent upon others. I do hope they provide updates to the audit as that signifies the audit teams are still in place and that a completed audit is usually terrible news for shorts. I also got the sense that EDU's audit phrased their words that way to cover their tracts as nothing is ever 100% certain in an audit. Theoretically, theres always the possibility of collusion or a verbal agreement between two parties. So having a little wiggle room in your verbiage always helps.
    3 Dec 2013, 04:35 PM Reply Like
  • Barhum
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Interesting work and very informative, well appreciated.
    Keep at it and don't be a stranger, thank you.
    3 Dec 2013, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • SivBum
    , contributor
    Comments (2163) | Send Message
     
    tradestar, Now that's what I called original material with deep research data to back them up. SA is a gold mine on similar cases that would include HOGS, HRBN and FSIN as well.

     

    Funny I wouldn't have seen your article as SA did not list it under NQ news prior to this morning, 6:09am PT. Something smells.

     

    Thanks a ton and happy holidays.
    5 Dec 2013, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • Trade Star
    , contributor
    Comments (604) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanks SivBum. My article was not accepted by SA. They did not think it added new material to the NQ discussion so I decided to post it as an instablog. There are a ton more cases that could be added, but I decided against it as there are too many to include. The cases I did use are actually the same cases as those that MW highlights on their case study page. http://bit.ly/1fwPyXy That way, no one could say I was biased or selectively misrepresenting things.
    5 Dec 2013, 11:15 AM Reply Like
  • canb888
    , contributor
    Comments (477) | Send Message
     
    I am so surprised and disappointed that SA did not accept to publish your article as it is clearly so much superior in quality to those short attack papers which do not use facts. They appear to be fast in publishing the short articles. I am following you now tradestar2012.
    11 Dec 2013, 11:02 PM Reply Like
  • Joe Cabrera
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Excellent analysis on how large short position holders are using almost too well-timed releases through SA to combat bull runs.
    5 Dec 2013, 07:32 PM Reply Like
  • Octogenarian
    , contributor
    Comments (64) | Send Message
     
    Took awhile to find this good piece. Thanks
    6 Dec 2013, 10:20 PM Reply Like
  • halfraw
    , contributor
    Comments (69) | Send Message
     
    Very well written, thank you.
    9 Dec 2013, 06:28 AM Reply Like
  • Dutch Trader
    , contributor
    Comments (1225) | Send Message
     
    Great article, why this wasn't published in PREMIUM note!

     

    Better than does fluffy short articles that are aired right now!
    11 Dec 2013, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • SimonTIghe
    , contributor
    Comments (66) | Send Message
     
    Brilliant article.
    11 Dec 2013, 05:20 PM Reply Like
  • IamHopeful2
    , contributor
    Comments (159) | Send Message
     
    Great article..first time I've seen all the things I've tried to reconcile in my mind about Muddy Waters targets in writing..good job..insightful and well written..though it's somewhat obvious you're long, it's not glaring or obnoxious at any time. I agree with earlier commenters, should have been posted by SA...looking forward to some of your future posts.

     

    *note..I've come to a conclusion of sorts..I believe that Seeking Alpha is definitely pushing the short sided articles on NQ mobile way more so than the long side's...now, I'm not sure if that's because it's editors may be short NQ, or because the short articles DEFINITELY provoke a lot more response from readers in general...i.e gets more people to the site...just an observation/opinion on my part..
    12 Dec 2013, 10:19 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.