Seeking Alpha

The Forensic Fa...'s  Instablog

The Forensic Factor
Send Message
The Forensic Factor (TFF) believes that individual investors are disadvantaged when investing in certain smaller companies. TFF believes we can profit from market inefficiencies while also identifying companies that are misrepresenting their prospects or financial results. By illuminating... More
  • Telestone Technologies (Part II): The Great Wall of Deceit 11 comments
    Jan 25, 2011 12:03 PM | about stocks: TSTC

    Telestone Technologies (Part II): The Great Wall of Deceit

     

    What is three cents, or less than one-half of one percent?  That was the impact on the stock price of Telestone Technologies (NASDAQ: TSTC) from the highly anticipated investor update call, the second unsuccessful call management has held in the past two months.  The Forensic Factor (TFF) first wrote about Telestone on January 11th with our report Telestone Technologies - A "RINO" in sheep's clothing.  In that report, we identified a myriad of concerns that were the foundation of our request for the NASDAQ to halt trading in Telestone (seekingalpha.com/instablog/790526-thefor...).  Despite the gravity of the questions we raised, Telestone has failed to address many of our concerns.  Further, an investor update call held on January 24th by Telestone management was replete with incriminating commentary that raised more questions than were answered.  In this brief follow-up, TFF will highlight (a much more comprehensive final report will examine manufacturing relationships and provincial branches):

     

    • A blatant violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 that should provide sufficient ammunition for class action lawyers and the SEC.
    • An accounts receivable balance, and associated DSO level, that defy logic, and arguably GAAP accounting.
    • A definitive admission from Telestone management that revenue is indeed being recognized on a percentage of completion basis, confirming TFF's suspicion that a restatement is necessary
    • Sixteen additional questions that the company failed to address, ranging from: a distributor that was incorporated fifteen months AFTER Telestone claims to have started the relationship, to an unusual interest free loan from a related party that represented nearly 50% of the company's cash at 9/30/10, and a history with an entity that appears to have had accounts frozen with large quantities of Telestone stock.

     

     

    Based on the action of the stock, the investing public appears to have voted with TFF.  This morning, TFF will again ask the NASDAQ to explore the facts in our first article, as well as examine additional brazen misrepresentations from Telestone's call on January 24th (http://www.mzcan.com/cancast/us/register.php?id=usTSTC_3&version=e).

     

    Abraham Lincoln once said, "No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar."  Fortunately for the NASDAQ, the SEC, and TFF, a good memory is not required in the age of public filings and recorded conference calls.  In our previous write-up, TFF was extremely careful to highlight the facts, opting to leave any fraud declaration to the class action attorneys and the regulators.  In addition to the quote above, Abraham Lincoln also said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt."  TFF believes that Telestone management would have been better off remaining silent.  Instead they spoke out yesterday, and essentially sealed their fate as a reverse Chinese merger that stands for everything regulators need to fix to restore confidence in the capital markets. 

     

    On the update call, Telestone management chose NOT to address many of the more heinous issues that we raised in our first article - a fact that was clearly not lost on the investment community.  Instead, Telestone management chose to wait nearly two full weeks to confront the growing conflagrations that should jeopardize their public listing.  In addition to refusing to address many of our concerns, management also disconnected one investor that appeared to raise valid questions that TFF will recap below.  To top it off, management blatantly misrepresented the circumstances of the auditor changes - a fact that we believe will be picked up on by many of the class action firms currently investigating Telestone.

     

    At the 15:20 mark of the call on 1/24/11, Telestone management addressed the juggling auditors - a major concern raised by TFF in our previous report.  As we highlighted, Telestone had two auditors resign within one year, the second of which was not disclosed until months after the resignation.  Telestone disclosed that Mazars had resigned on July 13, 2009 in an 8K filing (http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHtmlSection1?SectionID=6736766-1159-7337&SessionID=WMJMH6nEJqubgA7), "On July 8, 2009, Mazars CPA Limited resigned as the independent registered public accounting firm for Telestone Technologies Corporation (the “Company”)."  Buried in Telestone's 10K, they disclose auditor resignation number two (bold/underlined is TFF emphasis)(http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/DisplayFiling.aspx?TabIndex=2&FilingID=7159133&companyid=64423&ppu=%252fDefault.aspx%253fcompanyid%253d64423):

     

    During the Company’s fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and through July 8, 2009, the Company engaged Mazars CPA Limited previously as the independent registered public accounting firm prior the engagement of QC CPA Group, LLC on July 9, 2009 through January 14, 2010. QC CPA Group, LLC performed the interim reviews of the Company’s financial statements for the period ended June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009.  QC CPA Group, LLC resigned on January 14, 2010 and the Company engaged Mazars CPA Limited as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm on January 18, 2010 to audit the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.

     

    It is the opinion of TFF that management lied and misrepresented the resignations by proclaiming that the auditor changes were in fact voluntary.  On the 1/24/11 call, Mr. Wu, who TFF devoted several paragraphs to in our last report, stated (bold emphasis of TFF):

     

    In the third quarter of 2009, some of our shareholders recommended that we switch from our long-standing auditor Mazars to a U.S.-based firm called QC CPA Group.  But soon we found out that this new auditor was not as familiar with our business and was treating some of our ordinary receivables as long-term ones.  Due to our high comfort level with our long-time auditor we switched back to Mazars. 

     

    First, the decision to switch to a U.S.-based audit firm is understandable.  However, the decision to use an unknown firm out of Beaver Creek, Ohio does not pass the smell test.  Secondly, this statement by management is fraught with deceit with the clear motive of misleading investors.   The decision to switch auditors was not benign and voluntary as management seems to suggest.  Instead, Telestone's public filings clearly state that both auditor changes were driven by existing auditor resignations.   TFF believes that this statement is a violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under (http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34Act/sec10.html) and (http://taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-5.html). 

     

    While the scope of management's discussion was quite limited, there were other noteworthy issues.  In a press release that hit the wires around the time the call commenced, Telestone management announced unaudited preliminary results (finance.yahoo.com/news/Telestone-Technol...).  The numbers are impressive when viewed in a vacuum.  But the P&L lives outside of a vacuum, with the balance sheet and cash flow statements providing a complete picture of financial health.  As TFF asserted in our last report, Telestone's results are meaningless without cash flows that approximate net income.  Based on Telestone's guidance for revenues of $131.5 million at the mid-point, this implies Q4'10 revenues of $60.6 million ($70.9 million for first 9 months).  Additionally, Telestone announced net income for 2010 of $30.75 million at the mid-point, implying Q4'10 net income of $18.5 million ($12.6 million for first 9 months).  Amazingly, the company confessed on the call that DSO's and accounts receivables increased dramatically.  A major focal point of the call was again DSO's, which Mr. Wu admitted climbed to 374 days from 358 days in 2009.  Equally concerning was the disclosure on the call that accounts receivable increased sequentially by $47 million (from $134 million to $181 million).  To put this lunacy into perspective, using the mid-point of guidance, the company's revenue only increased $17.5 million quarter-over-quarter (from $43.1 million to $60.6 million), which compares to a jump of $47 million in accounts receivable. 

     

    At the 33:20 mark of the call, an exchange took place between management and an investor that illustrated management's inability to reconcile any of their numbers.  We would encourage any potential investors to listen to that segment of the call that ended with management disconnecting the caller mid-question (http://www.mzcan.com/cancast/us/register.php?id=usTSTC_3&version=e).  Additionally, TFF found it very odd that management placed the entire conference call on hold/mute for 15 seconds at the 35:20 mark and confessed multiple times that they could not explain the trend in the numbers that they had just provided in their prepared remarks.  Management finally capitulated at the 39:55 mark, admitting "we can not reconcile those [numbers] over a phone call like this" and said they would file an 8K to reconcile the discrepancy between the 10Q disclosures. 

     

    After digging through the September 10Q (http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1?ID=7556714&SessionID=rpAvHj8AoL5mF27), TFF believes it has discovered the smoking gun that management was unable to reconcile.  As TFF stated in our last report, Telestone is either booking unbilled receivables or is misclassifying long-term A/R as short-term.  The recent management call validated our suspicion.  On the call, Mr. Wu discussed the payment process of the big 3 and stated (10:00 into the call),"once their payment process is activated usually we can collect 90% of the customer volume except for warranty related receivables that isn't due for 24 months."  This appears to be a consistent statement with the language in the most recent 10Q, "Approximately 10% of our professional services revenue are settled after 24 months of our warranty period."  HOWEVER, THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT RECONCILE WITH THE DISCLOSED AMOUNT IN THE 10Q. 

     

    TFF believes that management's stated policy of 10% of services settling after 24 month, as well as the policy language in the 10Q does not reconcile with the disclosed amount of A/R that is expected to be collected after one year. The September 10Q states, "Of the retentions balance as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, approximately US$3,023,000 and US$903,000 respectively are expected to be collected after one year" (Note 6 - Accounts Receivable).  If the company has $3 million that represents 10% of the professional service revenues booked over the last 12 months, then that would imply that the maximum service revenue that Telestone could have recognized over the past 12 months was $30 million.  However, the trailing 12 month services revenue through Q3'10 was $66.2 million ($41.9 million first 9 mo's of 2010 and $24.3 million in Q4'09).  This level of service revenue, which comes with 10% of revenues collected after 24 months, would imply at least $6.62 million of receivables to be collected after one year (this doesn't even include the amounts from Q1'09 - Q3'09 which would still be under the 24 month collection period and make the numbers even more challenging to reconcile).  Given the fact the Big 3 purportedly represent 99%^ of revenues, TFF sees no explanation for these inconsistencies.  TFF is convinced that Telestone's reported financial are irreconcilable, and management's inability to answer basic questions on the call, solidifies our perspective.  As TFF asserted in our last report, we are nearly certain that Telestone is recognizing revenues without invoicing customers and/or is recognizing revenues under a percentage of completion methodology without the necessary disclosures (unbilled receivables). 

     

    While we were unable to find conclusive evidence that Telestone was not invoicing customers at the time of our last report, we believe management unwittingly provided confirmation on the investor update call.  At 8:08 into the call, Mr. Wu defended their ballooning accounts receivable balance by stating, "A delay in customer inspection reduced our ability to issue invoices."  There is no way to interpret this statement other than Telestone has recognized revenues, booked a receivable, and has not been able to collect said receivables because no invoice was issued because of a delay in inspection (approval).  WHAT MR. WU DESCRIBED IS THE EXACT DEFINTION MOST COMPANIES USE FOR UNBILLED RECEIVABLES -Unbilled Receivable” means any Receivable for goods sold or services performed for the related Obligor, and with respect to which no invoice has been submitted to such Obligor for payment of the amount thereof" (www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.22xj6.d.htm).

    TFF believes this statement is a confession that Telestone is in fact recognizing revenues without invoicing customers.  If we are correct, we believe Telestone investors could face significant consequences that should start with a restatement.  While there is nothing wrong with percentage of completion accounting, Telestone has never disclosed this revenue recognition policy and would need to restate past periods disclosing unbilled receivable.  Further, as TFF has suspected, investors would be investing with incomplete and inaccurate information.   If this is the case, and Telestone is not a fraud (which TFF will again leave to lawyers and regulators to determine), then this could explain: the astronomical accounts receivable, the lack of associated cash flows, the ability to recognize revenues with significant discretion, and the unusual warranty period when revenues are recognized, but apparently no invoice is issued until some inspection occurs.

     

    In addition to the significant and material misstatements that were gleaned from the update call, TFF is equally concerned about the areas that Telestone failed to address:

     

    1)       Why did Telestone claim to work with Quell Corp a full 15 months before Quell Corp was formed (despite being discussed at length in out first report, TFF does not believe Quell was referenced in the prepared remarks)?

    2)       Why are they not complying with applicable Chinese tax laws as disclosed in their financial filings?

    3)       Why did allowance for doubtful accounts decline by such a large percentage in Q3'10?

    4)       Why are the contacts listed in past Telestone press releases so inconsistent and mysterious?

    5)       Why did the company fail to include Mr. Wu in any of their presentations or the management slide on their website?

    6)       How did Mr. Wu add two years of experience on his resumes in just ten months between his employment at China Natural Gas and China Medicines?

    7)       Why have there been three people listed as Secretary of the Board, one of whom had a New Jersey phone number and a Gmail account listed as contact information (this is salient as well as our entire tree of oddities in our last report)?

    8)       Why are Mr. Wu and Mr. Ballard, emailing individual investors, and potentially providing selective disclosures that are appearing on yahoo message boards? (http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=57397703) and  (http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Business_%26_Finance/Investments/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_T/threadview?bn=51264&tid=31530&mid=31530) and (http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_T/threadview?m=tm&bn=51264&tid=34952&mid=34952&tof=44&frt=2)

    9)       Given the commentary on the update call about retaining Deloitte & Touche, when can we expect an 8K on their engagement?

    10)    What was/is the involvement of Paul Kelley with Telestone?  Why did he appear in pictures with Telestone's management on the podium of the AMEX in 2005 and Nasdaq Global Market in 2007?  (pictured and detailed - http://sharesleuth.com/investigations/2011/01/you-wont-find-s-paul/)

    11)    Does the frozen account of Winner International own Telestone shares?  Did the company give 200,000 Telestone shares to Winner International without disclosing that in SEC filings as Sharesleuth suggests (http://sharesleuth.com/investigations/2011/01/you-wont-find-s-paul/)?

    12)    Did MCC Group receive shares of Telestone in exchange for $50,000 loans as ShareSleuth details? (http://sharesleuth.com/investigations/2011/01/you-wont-find-s-paul/)

    13)    Does CEO Han have any remaining business relationships with MCC Group?

    14)    What is the nature of the loan that CEO Han has provided to Telestone and why was it necessary?

    15)    What is the $536,000 related party loan and why is Telestone not collecting interest on this loan (http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/101115/TELESTONE-TECHNOLOGIES-CORP_10-Q/)?

    16)    Which Director lent the company $4.13 million and why was this necessary if Telestone is in sound financial health?

     

    Like our last report, TFF is very concerned that investors are trading in Telestone with incomplete and inaccurate information.  This concern seems particularly germane given the rampant retail message boards and individual investor interest.  Telestone's message boards on Yahoo Finance had approximately 359 posts on January 24th alone!  This type of retail involvement is wonderful for the stock market.  However, if regulators intend to protect the retail experience, then it is paramount that they begin to address the massive issues that are present with so many of the Chinese reverse mergers.  TFF is hopeful that the recent attention from mainstream publications will expedite regulatory action (www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2011/01...) TFF has confidence that our requests to the NASDAQ and SEC will not fall on deaf ears.  And if report II does not garner appropriate attention, we are extremely confident that our final report (NASDAQ:III) that explores the outsourced manufacturer and provincial offices will.

     

    As we said in our last report, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck."



    *** The author of this article is short Telestone stock. 
    TFF goes to great lengths to ensure that all information is factual and referenced. All facts that we present on this site are true to ...More the best of our knowledge. All opinions presented are our own and accurately reflect our actual opinion on the relevant subject being discussed at the time

     

     

     

     

    Themes: China, short ideas Stocks: TSTC
Back To The Forensic Factor'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 (11)
Track new comments
  • JoeNatural
    , contributor
    Comments (863) | Send Message
     
    Interesting "hit piece." Bottom line with TSTC is that the stock now trades with a trailing P/E of less than 2 and when the company's collection efforts improve, the stock will fly. It's an easy stock to beat on right now, but not for long. AT&T is using TSTC products and technology and the end users are more than pleased with the work of Quell. Just call Tina Carkhuff, the Director of Data Voice Communications with Hermann Memorial Hospitals. She says that Quell, along with TSTC will have many more jobs waiting for them. And how nice of you to leave out the fact that 42% of Q-4 revenues were derived as a result of TSTC's WFDS technology. Translation for the uneducated ? Huge margins going forward and lower DSO's, but when writing a "hit piece," you certainly wouldn't want to disclose this would you ? LOL.
    25 Jan 2011, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Karl Glazier
    , contributor
    Comments (75) | Send Message
     
    You make money the old fashioned way, by stealing it from frightened retail investors.
    Nobody has been more wrong than Zerohedge (your website) in the last 2 years, with constant extremely bearish articles about everything.
    And then you complain that Quell confirmed they are installing TSTCs equipment, after you lied about not being able to reach them. Investors have reached them easily. That was your main argument, a complete LIE.
    If you followed your own bearish advice over the last 2 years by shorting everything, you must have lost a fortune.
    Now you are trying to recoup your losses by stealing from retail investors.
    25 Jan 2011, 12:55 PM Reply Like
  • bogeyDman
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    So the 'author' made no effort to contact Quell, the happy clients. or anyone with real history with the company, contractors, or customers?

     

    Hit piece from a guy hiding behind an alias. The SEC should certainly be looking into this......
    25 Jan 2011, 12:56 PM Reply Like
  • Karl Glazier
    , contributor
    Comments (75) | Send Message
     
    This anonymous poster was previously hiding behind the name Tyler Durden.
    Here are some of his previous postings on SA, all horribly proven wrong:
    7/2009: A Thoroughly Exhausted Bull Market
    (Has he been short since then?)
    6/2009: Domestic Investment Plunges: Shadows of the Great Depression?
    4/2009: One Trillion Dollar Commercial Real Estate Time Bomb Now Ticking
    4/2009: David Tice: S&P 500 May Plunge to 325
    4/2009: Genworth Financial Enters Run Off Mode - Others to Follow?
    (Since that bearish article, the stock is up 8-fold)
    4/2009: Sonic Auto: Possible Bankruptcy
    (Since that bearish article, the stock is up 7-fold)
    3/2009: The Great REIT Unravelling Begins? Simon Property Group Defaults on Loan
    (SPG has more than tripled since then)

     

    What about all the SA readers who listened to him under the Tyler Durden name and lost a fortune?

     

    No wonder he changed his name.
    25 Jan 2011, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • Karl Glazier
    , contributor
    Comments (75) | Send Message
     
    Roth just out defending TSTC again

     

    Some quotes:

     

    "Meanwhile, management provided clarifying details for revenue recognition and high DSOs."

     

    "We believe TSTC recognizes revenue appropriately based on its project construction schedules, and we are comfortable with the explanations provided by TSTC and the telecom carriers regarding the company's high DSOs."

     

    "We believe 2010 DSOs were in a reasonable range compared to competitors."

     

    "We urge investors to take advantage of the mis-information in the market as a buying opportunity."

     

    Their PT is $18 based on 7.3x their 2011 est.

     

    "We look to apply a higher multiple for valuation when visibility of WFDS's market success and track record in the international market are more proven."
    25 Jan 2011, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • kingfrogcash
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Quell Corporation was incorporated on December 03, 2009
    TSTC didn't announce Quell until August 9th 2010
    After they signed a customer. Your date taken out of the August 9th press release, but it means nothing. Nice try?

     

    What crime was committed with the change in auditor's?

     

    Mr Wu isn't a form 3 officer of TSTS. His resume is not material to TSTC. However looking at CHNG's press release it had a +12 years experience. Perhaps your not familiar with +

     

    I listened to replay and I have to tell you the hung up callers questions were very difficult to understand much less answer.
    And TSTC asked him to contact IR for clarification.
    But you were not really looking for an answer.
    25 Jan 2011, 03:03 PM Reply Like
  • kingfrogcash
    , contributor
    Comments (162) | Send Message
     
    Why did allowance for doubtful accounts decline by such a large percentage in Q3'10? Huh?

     

    It was about the same as last year.
    25 Jan 2011, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • paulliu
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    They cut off the line because your criminal short misled the CFO and maneuvered the conference.
    You are a criminal small crab,why should TSTC address any of your lies so to give credit to you, liaer? I am a small investor and I will answer all your so-called questions one by one when I get time.

     

    1)Why did Telestone claim to work with Quell Corp a full 15 months before Quell Corp was formed (despite being discussed at length in out first report, TFF does not believe Quell was referenced in the prepared remarks)
    A: TSTC started working with the guys much earlier, discussing their products, and training them, these guys took all necessary materials and called around to see if they could find a business. They set up the company after they saw opportunities. What is wrong with that? Most important is that TSTC did and is working with Quell and has got US business. You surely know that, don't you? Liaer?

     

    2) Why are they not complying with applicable Chinese tax laws as disclosed in their financial filings?
    Liaer again, you don't have evidence for that. TSTC is in full complying with Chinese tax laws since I checked their books and chinese filings before I bought the stock

     

    more to come....
    25 Jan 2011, 06:28 PM Reply Like
  • paulliu
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    3) Why did allowance for doubtful accounts decline by such a large percentage in Q3'10?

     

    Ans: If you compare it with previous Qs, they are very consistent.

     

    4) Why are the contacts listed in past Telestone press releases so inconsistent and mysterious?

     

    Ans: Understand China before attack China. Ask your chinese short friend, these contacts are very low level employees, maybe someone works as a summer job, maybe somebody got married... they can let go whenevn they are not perform. You yourself was fired several times. Was it mysterious?

     

    5) Why did the company fail to include Mr. Wu in any of their presentations or the management slide on their website?

     

    Ans: The website is out of data, and they are working on to create a new one.

     

    7) Why have there been three people listed as Secretary of the Board, one of whom had a New Jersey phone number and a Gmail account listed as contact information (this is salient as well as our entire tree of oddities in our last report)?

     

    Ans: Why not, a board can have three secretary, each of them takes care of different regions.

     

    I am tired of you. You need to be put into a jail.

     

    Telestone Technologies (Part II): The Great Wall of Deceit 9 comments
    Jan 25, 2011 12:03 PM | about stocks: TSTC
    Font: PrintEmail Recommend 0 Share this page
    Share0 Telestone Technologies (Part II): The Great Wall of Deceit

     

    What is three cents, or less than one-half of one percent? That was the impact on the stock price of Telestone Technologies (NASDAQ: TSTC) from the highly anticipated investor update call, the second unsuccessful call management has held in the past two months. The Forensic Factor (TFF) first wrote about Telestone on January 11th with our report Telestone Technologies - A "RINO" in sheep's clothing. In that report, we identified a myriad of concerns that were the foundation of our request for the NASDAQ to halt trading in Telestone (seekingalpha.com/inst... Despite the gravity of the questions we raised, Telestone has failed to address many of our concerns. Further, an investor update call held on January 24th by Telestone management was replete with incriminating commentary that raised more questions than were answered. In this brief follow-up, TFF will highlight (a much more comprehensive final report will examine manufacturing relationships and provincial branches):

     

    A blatant violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 that should provide sufficient ammunition for class action lawyers and the SEC.
    An accounts receivable balance, and associated DSO level, that defy logic, and arguably GAAP accounting.
    A definitive admission from Telestone management that revenue is indeed being recognized on a percentage of completion basis, confirming TFF's suspicion that a restatement is necessary
    Sixteen additional questions that the company failed to address, ranging from: a distributor that was incorporated fifteen months AFTER Telestone claims to have started the relationship, to an unusual interest free loan from a related party that represented nearly 50% of the company's cash at 9/30/10, and a history with an entity that appears to have had accounts frozen with large quantities of Telestone stock.

     

    Based on the action of the stock, the investing public appears to have voted with TFF. This morning, TFF will again ask the NASDAQ to explore the facts in our first article, as well as examine additional brazen misrepresentations from Telestone's call on January 24th (www.mzcan.com/cancast/...).

     

    Abraham Lincoln once said, "No man has a good enough memory to make a successful liar." Fortunately for the NASDAQ, the SEC, and TFF, a good memory is not required in the age of public filings and recorded conference calls. In our previous write-up, TFF was extremely careful to highlight the facts, opting to leave any fraud declaration to the class action attorneys and the regulators. In addition to the quote above, Abraham Lincoln also said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt." TFF believes that Telestone management would have been better off remaining silent. Instead they spoke out yesterday, and essentially sealed their fate as a reverse Chinese merger that stands for everything regulators need to fix to restore confidence in the capital markets.

     

    On the update call, Telestone management chose NOT to address many of the more heinous issues that we raised in our first article - a fact that was clearly not lost on the investment community. Instead, Telestone management chose to wait nearly two full weeks to confront the growing conflagrations that should jeopardize their public listing. In addition to refusing to address many of our concerns, management also disconnected one investor that appeared to raise valid questions that TFF will recap below. To top it off, management blatantly misrepresented the circumstances of the auditor changes - a fact that we believe will be picked up on by many of the class action firms currently investigating Telestone.

     

    At the 15:20 mark of the call on 1/24/11, Telestone management addressed the juggling auditors - a major concern raised by TFF in our previous report. As we highlighted, Telestone had two auditors resign within one year, the second of which was not disclosed until months after the resignation. Telestone disclosed that Mazars had resigned on July 13, 2009 in an 8K filing (google.brand.edgar-onl...), "On July 8, 2009, Mazars CPA Limited resigned as the independent registered public accounting firm for Telestone Technologies Corporation (the “Company”)." Buried in Telestone's 10K, they disclose auditor resignation number two (bold/underlined is TFF emphasis)(yahoo.brand.edgar-onli...):

     

    During the Company’s fiscal years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 and through July 8, 2009, the Company engaged Mazars CPA Limited previously as the independent registered public accounting firm prior the engagement of QC CPA Group, LLC on July 9, 2009 through January 14, 2010. QC CPA Group, LLC performed the interim reviews of the Company’s financial statements for the period ended June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009. QC CPA Group, LLC resigned on January 14, 2010 and the Company engaged Mazars CPA Limited as the Company’s new independent registered public accounting firm on January 18, 2010 to audit the Company’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2009.

     

    It is the opinion of TFF that management lied and misrepresented the resignations by proclaiming that the auditor changes were in fact voluntary. On the 1/24/11 call, Mr. Wu, who TFF devoted several paragraphs to in our last report, stated (bold emphasis of TFF):

     

    In the third quarter of 2009, some of our shareholders recommended that we switch from our long-standing auditor Mazars to a U.S.-based firm called QC CPA Group. But soon we found out that this new auditor was not as familiar with our business and was treating some of our ordinary receivables as long-term ones. Due to our high comfort level with our long-time auditor we switched back to Mazars.

     

    First, the decision to switch to a U.S.-based audit firm is understandable. However, the decision to use an unknown firm out of Beaver Creek, Ohio does not pass the smell test. Secondly, this statement by management is fraught with deceit with the clear motive of misleading investors. The decision to switch auditors was not benign and voluntary as management seems to suggest. Instead, Telestone's public filings clearly state that both auditor changes were driven by existing auditor resignations. TFF believes that this statement is a violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there under (taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34...) and (taft.law.uc.edu/CCL/34...).

     

    While the scope of management's discussion was quite limited, there were other noteworthy issues. In a press release that hit the wires around the time the call commenced, Telestone management announced unaudited preliminary results (finance.yahoo.com/new... The numbers are impressive when viewed in a vacuum. But the P&L lives outside of a vacuum, with the balance sheet and cash flow statements providing a complete picture of financial health. As TFF asserted in our last report, Telestone's results are meaningless without cash flows that approximate net income. Based on Telestone's guidance for revenues of $131.5 million at the mid-point, this implies Q4'10 revenues of $60.6 million ($70.9 million for first 9 months). Additionally, Telestone announced net income for 2010 of $30.75 million at the mid-point, implying Q4'10 net income of $18.5 million ($12.6 million for first 9 months). Amazingly, the company confessed on the call that DSO's and accounts receivables increased dramatically. A major focal point of the call was again DSO's, which Mr. Wu admitted climbed to 374 days from 358 days in 2009. Equally concerning was the disclosure on the call that accounts receivable increased sequentially by $47 million (from $134 million to $181 million). To put this lunacy into perspective, using the mid-point of guidance, the company's revenue only increased $17.5 million quarter-over-quarter (from $43.1 million to $60.6 million), which compares to a jump of $47 million in accounts receivable.

     

    At the 33:20 mark of the call, an exchange took place between management and an investor that illustrated management's inability to reconcile any of their numbers. We would encourage any potential investors to listen to that segment of the call that ended with management disconnecting the caller mid-question (www.mzcan.com/cancast/...). Additionally, TFF found it very odd that management placed the entire conference call on hold/mute for 15 seconds at the 35:20 mark and confessed multiple times that they could not explain the trend in the numbers that they had just provided in their prepared remarks. Management finally capitulated at the 39:55 mark, admitting "we can not reconcile those [numbers] over a phone call like this" and said they would file an 8K to reconcile the discrepancy between the 10Q disclosures.

     

    After digging through the September 10Q (google.brand.edgar-onl...), TFF believes it has discovered the smoking gun that management was unable to reconcile. As TFF stated in our last report, Telestone is either booking unbilled receivables or is misclassifying long-term A/R as short-term. The recent management call validated our suspicion. On the call, Mr. Wu discussed the payment process of the big 3 and stated (10:00 into the call),"once their payment process is activated usually we can collect 90% of the customer volume except for warranty related receivables that isn't due for 24 months." This appears to be a consistent statement with the language in the most recent 10Q, "Approximately 10% of our professional services revenue are settled after 24 months of our warranty period." HOWEVER, THESE STATEMENTS DO NOT RECONCILE WITH THE DISCLOSED AMOUNT IN THE 10Q.

     

    TFF believes that management's stated policy of 10% of services settling after 24 month, as well as the policy language in the 10Q does not reconcile with the disclosed amount of A/R that is expected to be collected after one year. The September 10Q states, "Of the retentions balance as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, approximately US$3,023,000 and US$903,000 respectively are expected to be collected after one year" (Note 6 - Accounts Receivable). If the company has $3 million that represents 10% of the professional service revenues booked over the last 12 months, then that would imply that the maximum service revenue that Telestone could have recognized over the past 12 months was $30 million. However, the trailing 12 month services revenue through Q3'10 was $66.2 million ($41.9 million first 9 mo's of 2010 and $24.3 million in Q4'09). This level of service revenue, which comes with 10% of revenues collected after 24 months, would imply at least $6.62 million of receivables to be collected after one year (this doesn't even include the amounts from Q1'09 - Q3'09 which would still be under the 24 month collection period and make the numbers even more challenging to reconcile). Given the fact the Big 3 purportedly represent 99%^ of revenues, TFF sees no explanation for these inconsistencies. TFF is convinced that Telestone's reported financial are irreconcilable, and management's inability to answer basic questions on the call, solidifies our perspective. As TFF asserted in our last report, we are nearly certain that Telestone is recognizing revenues without invoicing customers and/or is recognizing revenues under a percentage of completion methodology without the necessary disclosures (unbilled receivables).

     

    While we were unable to find conclusive evidence that Telestone was not invoicing customers at the time of our last report, we believe management unwittingly provided confirmation on the investor update call. At 8:08 into the call, Mr. Wu defended their ballooning accounts receivable balance by stating, "A delay in customer inspection reduced our ability to issue invoices." There is no way to interpret this statement other than Telestone has recognized revenues, booked a receivable, and has not been able to collect said receivables because no invoice was issued because of a delay in inspection (approval). WHAT MR. WU DESCRIBED IS THE EXACT DEFINTION MOST COMPANIES USE FOR UNBILLED RECEIVABLES -“Unbilled Receivable” means any Receivable for goods sold or services performed for the related Obligor, and with respect to which no invoice has been submitted to such Obligor for payment of the amount thereof" (secinfo.com/d14D5a.22x...).

     

    TFF believes this statement is a confession that Telestone is in fact recognizing revenues without invoicing customers. If we are correct, we believe Telestone investors could face significant consequences that should start with a restatement. While there is nothing wrong with percentage of completion accounting, Telestone has never disclosed this revenue recognition policy and would need to restate past periods disclosing unbilled receivable. Further, as TFF has suspected, investors would be investing with incomplete and inaccurate information. If this is the case, and Telestone is not a fraud (which TFF will again leave to lawyers and regulators to determine), then this could explain: the astronomical accounts receivable, the lack of associated cash flows, the ability to recognize revenues with significant discretion, and the unusual warranty period when revenues are recognized, but apparently no invoice is issued until some inspection occurs.

     

    In addition to the significant and material misstatements that were gleaned from the update call, TFF is equally concerned about the areas that Telestone failed to address:

     

    1) Why did Telestone claim to work with Quell Corp a full 15 months before Quell Corp was formed (despite being discussed at length in out first report, TFF does not believe Quell was referenced in the prepared remarks)?

     

    2) Why are they not complying with applicable Chinese tax laws as disclosed in their financial filings?

     

    3) Why did allowance for doubtful accounts decline by such a large percentage in Q3'10?

     

    4) Why are the contacts listed in past Telestone press releases so inconsistent and mysterious?

     

    5) Why did the company fail to include Mr. Wu in any of their presentations or the management slide on their website?

     

    6) How did Mr. Wu add two years of experience on his resumes in just ten months between his employment at China Natural Gas and China Medicines?

     

    7) Why have there been three people listed as Secretary of the Board, one of whom had a New Jersey phone number and a Gmail account listed as contact information (this is salient as well as our entire tree of oddities in our last report)?

     

    8) Why are Mr. Wu and Mr. Ballard, emailing individual investors, and potentially providing selective disclosures that are appearing on yahoo message boards?
    Ans: so you liars trust a message board to do your so-called research? You are a mo-ther fu-cker.

     

    9) Given the commentary on the update call about retaining Deloitte & Touche, when can we expect an 8K on their engagement?

     

    Ans; What do you care about that? Deloitte is TSTC's consulant, TSTC will have a K8 when both of them are ready.
    25 Jan 2011, 09:09 PM Reply Like
  • paulliu
    , contributor
    Comments (41) | Send Message
     
    8) Why are Mr. Wu and Mr. Ballard, emailing individual investors, and potentially providing selective disclosures that are appearing on yahoo message boards?
    Ans: so you liars trust a message board to do your so-called research? You are a mo-ther fu-cker.

     

    9) Given the commentary on the update call about retaining Deloitte & Touche, when can we expect an 8K on their engagement?

     

    Ans; What do you care about that? Deloitte is TSTC's consulant, TSTC will have a K8 when both of them are ready.
    25 Jan 2011, 09:28 PM Reply Like
  • jasonvance
    , contributor
    Comments (24) | Send Message
     
    Forensic Factor, are you close to having Report III complete? I am very interested in what you have found regarding manufacturing.
    7 May 2011, 08:06 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


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.