The Skeptical I...'s  Instablog

The Skeptical Investor
Send Message
I am an investor working in China, with extensive experience in the M&A and private equity area.
  • Unable to Verify Customer Mentioned in Global Hunter Report on China MediaExpress 243 comments
    Feb 25, 2011 5:25 AM | about stocks: CCME

    (Update: see also "2008 China MediaExpress Ad Raises Questions")


    On February 17, in a rebuttal to some of the negative claims recently made against China MediaExpress (OTCPK:CCME), Global Hunter Securities issued a new research report by its analyst Ping Luo.  This latest report is follow-up to earlier reports on CCME by Ping Luo and describes, among other things, her latest review of the company's bank account statements, tax filings, customer contracts, and interviews with customers, during her visit with the company in China.

    Regarding the interviews with customers, the report states:

    In addition to talking to CCME’s direct customers, we called China Telecom Jiangsu Branch, as well as the exclusive advertising agencies for Coca Cola and L’Oreal in the Shanghai region, who are CCME’s indirect customers but confirmed with us that they have placed ads on CCME’s platform. 
     
    I work and live in China and happen to have a friend who works at L'Oreal's China headquarters in Shanghai.  So I asked her about CCME.  She checked with her colleagues in the advertising group, as well as the manager in charge of advertising placement.  They all told her that they have never heard of China MediaExpress or Fujian Fenzhong Media.  I sent her a copy of CCME's ratecard available from its website, which has CCME's names in Chinese, and we are both native Chinese speakers, so there is no question of confusion about the names of the company.  Indeed, she was further told that L'Oreal does not place advertisement on inter-city long-distance buses or airport buses because their passengers tend to be more of a "mobile / transient population".  They do place ads in subways and buses within cities.  I suspect a related reason is that the passengers on inter-city long-distance buses, in particular, but also airport shuttles, tend to be largely male, whereas L'Oreal's target consumers are mostly urban female office workers.  

    After learning this from my friend, I tried to get responses from Ping Luo and Jacky Lam, CCME's CFO.  i asked them for the name of the agency responsible for the L'Oreal ads that Ping mentioned in her report so that I could check again with L'Oreal. Ping told me that she was given the contact information on a confidential basis and asked me to get it from Jacky Lam.  

    Over the course of last two days, I have been exchanging emails with Jacky Lam to get information about the ad agency so I can clear up this conflict.  So far, I have been unsuccessful in getting any further information from Jacky Lam. 

    You can read the emails between Jacky and me below.  

    Both Jacky Lam and Ping Luo told me that they cannot tell me the name of the ad agency because their client ad agencies have already been contacted by too many longs and shorts in recent days.  Considering how secret CCME has been about the names of the ad agencies that are its customers (other investors have also mentioned any inability to obtain customer names from the company), it is difficult to understand how they could have been receiving calls from investors to any significant extent.  Bus Online, a competitor to CCME that does advertisements on buses within cities, provides a full list of ad agencies they work with on its website, even though it is still a private company.  A publicly listed company should obviously expect to be much more transparent.  

    Given the lack of responsiveness from the company to my inquiry, I have decided to go public and wait for a public response from the company.  Jacky Lam made no attempt to respond to the substance of my findings but instead asked for the contact information of my source, which I was not willing to disclose in the interest of my friend's privacy.  This will give the company a chance to give its answer to the all investors.  As I mentioned to Jacky, under Reg FD of the US securities rules, a listed company is required to share with the general public all material non-public information it discloses to analysts.  
     
    The best course now would be for CCME to release a signed statement from the ad agency handling the L'Oreal ads to confirm the amount of ads they placed with CCME in 2010.  In fact, the company could clear up most of the questions about its business if it would release similiar statements from as many of its customers as possible, including the ones Ping Luo mentioned on an anonymous basis in her February 17 report.  

    Disclosure: I hold a short position in OTCPK:CCME.  I have other reasons to be doubtful about the company besides this latest discovery, on the basis of both widely published report and Chinese materials that I found which have not yet been discussed in English language forums.  I have not written yet about those other discoveries because they are more in a gray area.  They may cast doubt but would not necessarily prove things 100% one way or another.  But this latest discovery is much more of a black-or-white issue.  I am very confident about my source and felt this was important enough to be brought to the public's attention.  

    p.s  It's true that the account I am giving here is not indepedently verifiable as is (though you could contact L'Oreal Shanghai yourself to check).  I am asking others to take my word for it to a degree.   The burden of proof and disclosure, however, is on the company. That's the burden a company assumes by going public. It would be easy for the company to provide evidence that L'Oreal is an (indirect) customer and the level of business it does by getting a statement from the ad agency it works. If they had provided that kind of documentary evidence for all their major customers, nobody would be asking all these questions.

    If this were the only issue I had with the company, I would not have come forward now.  But given all the other questions about the company, I felt trying to get the company's side of the story for two days was long enough.  
     
     
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: xxxx <xxxx>
    Date: 2011/2/25
    Subject: Re: 答复: CCME customer
    To: Jacky Lam <jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk>
     
    If you do not present evidence of your business with L'Oreal using the two methods I mentioned or something equivalent, then I will go public with my findings and wait for your public response. 
     
    ---------- 
    From: xxxx <xxxx>
    Date: 2011/2/25
    Subject: Re: 答复: CCME customer
    To: Jacky Lam <jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk>
     
    Jacky, 
     
    My friend was checking for me as a favor.  I can't release her contact info without a good reason.  
     
    The situation is I described in my email: according to a manager in charge of advertisement placement at L'Oreal's China headquarters in Shanghai, they do not place advertisements on airport buses and long-distance inter-city buses.  
     
    Global Hunter's Ping Luo's Feb. 17 report states that CCME gave her the contact information for the agency handling the L'Oreal ads in Shanghai and she confirmed with them that they place ads on CCME's buses.  As a US-listed company, you are obligated to give the public access to the same information that you give to analysts.  See SEC Reg FD (Fair Disclosure): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Fair_Di...
     
    To clear the conflicting information between what Ping Luo reported and what I have learned from L'Oreal,  you could either 
    - give me the name of the agency handling the L'Oreal ads that you gave to Ping Luo so I can check with L'Oreal again, or if you prefer,
    - have the ad agency Ping Luo mentioned release a signed statement stating the amount of ads for L'Oreal they placed with CCME in 2010 and you can release the statement to the public.
     
    Thank you.  
     
    ---------- Forwarded message ----------
    From: Jacky Lam <jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk>
    Date: 2011/2/25
    Subject: Re: 答复: CCME customer
    To: xxxx <xxxx>
     
    As mentioned, please provide your contact so that I can understand call him/her to understand the situation. I can then give you a proper response. 
     
    Sent from my iPhone 
     
    ---------- 
    From: xxxx <xxxx>
    Date: 2011/2/24
    Subject: Re: 答复: CCME customer
    To: Jacky Lam <jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk>
     
    I am an investor trying to verifying the various claims about the company.  Any response to the substance of my email?  
     
    ---------- 
    From: Jacky Lam <jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk>
    Date: 2011/2/24
    Subject: 答复: CCME customer
    To: xxxx <xxxx>
     
    Could you give your contact to me instead?  Our customers are subject to serious disturbance in this period.   Also, may I know who are you? 
     
    ---------- 
    From: xxxx <xxxx>
    Date: Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 4:52 PM
    Subject: Re: CCME customer
    To: jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk
     
    Any response, Jacky?
     
    ---------- 
    From: xxxx <xxxx>
    Date: Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:09 AM
    Subject: CCME customer
    To: jackylam@mediaexpress.com.hk
     
    Hi Jacky,
     
    I have been following the recent news on China MediaExpress as an investor and was particularly glad to see Global Hunter's Feb. 17 report provide more detailed information on the customers.  The report mentions that Ping Luo obtained the names of customers and ad agencies from CCME and was able to verify them.  In particular, Ping Luo wrote that she verified CCME's customer contracts with the exclusive ad agencies for Coca Cola and L'Oreal in Shanghai.  

    I happen to have a friend who works at L'Oreal in Shanghai, which is their China headquarters.  I asked her about CCME / Fujian Fenzhong and gave her a copy of your rate card.  She checked with their manager in charge of advertising and was told that they have not heard of CCME or Fujian Fenzhong and that in any case, L'Oreal does not place ads on long-distance buses and airport buses because their passengers tend to be of a "mobile population".  They do, however, place ads on subway and buses within large cities.  Could you give me the contact info for the ad agency for L'Oreal you gave to Ping Luo so I could check the name with my friend?  This is serious.  We need to get to the bottom of this. 
    Stocks: CCME
Back To The Skeptical Investor'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 (243)
Track new comments
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I suspect that you will find the same with all of the large companies that CCME claims advertise with them. The tactics of obfuscation that CCME employs is typical of how the chinese committ fraud, as detailed in the book Mr. China.
    25 Feb 2011, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Business Economics Analyst,

     

    as a Chinese having lived in China for 16 years, in Australia for one year, in Denmark for 6 month, and in Germany for 18 year, I can honestly tell you from my own experience that there are frauds anywhere, including but not particularly restricted to China. In case of ccme, I believe that ccme is a true company based on my own logical thinking and DD.

     

    You do not need to invest in ccme and you are free to short ccme. I myself have invested heavily into ccme. One of us will be wrong about ccme. If I am wrong, I will lose all my savings, so I did my own DD more than throughly and the conclusion of my own DD is that ccme is a real and legitimate company that must have a very high ROE or ROA.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:41 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Well, you certainly haven't provided any information showing that these large companies are actually advertising with CCME and paying them substantial sums of money. These article shows the false representation concerning L'Oreal.
    As far as the fact that there are frauds everywhere - no kidding, I don't think anyone disputes that obvious fact. In fact, these chinese small cap frauds may be generated even more from the U.S. side than the China side.
    A far as China, I think there are two things that no one really honestly disputes. China has had probably the most incredible economic growth in the last 20-30 years that the world has ever seen - tremendous. On the other hand, China is a top contender for being one of the fraud capitals of the world. It may even be that the two go hand in hand, when you see great growth, it is also a great place to perpetrate frauds, because there are also real incredible stories going on.
    However, CCME is an incredible fraud story, not an incredible growth story.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Focus on the facts:

     

    ccme-info.xanga.com/74.../

     

    Video of a L'oreal ad on a CCME monitor.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:56 AM Reply Like
  • floridahockeyman
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I would submit that the video is far better evidence of the truth than an instablog from an alleged M&A attorney incapable of correctly spelling the word "rebuttal." ;-)
    25 Feb 2011, 12:12 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanks for the correction. Lawyers are human, too. ;-)
    25 Feb 2011, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    the video is not evidence that L'Oreal is paying CCME. It is evidence that a video is playing on a tv screen on a bus in China. that is about all it is evidence of.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:48 PM Reply Like
  • User 35951
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Question? What internet site did you buy your law degree? Could you give us the total cost, how long it took, was the final exam open book? I assume you didn't take a state board exam?
    25 Feb 2011, 12:53 PM Reply Like
  • Timothy Conway
    , contributor
    Comments (539) | Send Message
     
    So let’s recap the situation: Reader10Q (for the sake of brevity, we’ll presume to use the pronoun “he”) contacts Jacky Lam pretending to be “an investor,” when he’s really a short. He ignores the fact that L’Oreal’s ads for CCME’s bus networks come from the ADVERTISING AGENCY, NOT L’Oreal itself. Then he demands from Jacky info. that has already been granted to an analyst, saying he has a right to that info because of SEC Reg FD (Fair Disclosure), but Reader10Q ignores the fact that, because of the massive short interest on CCME the last 8 months and the recent vicious, relentless bear raid attack, “Our customers are subject to serious disturbance in this period,” as Jacky writes in his email--a fact that clearly preempts that SEC Reg FD. Then Reader10Q turns intimidating, threatening Jacky with an ultimatum that he “will go public,” i.e., implying he’ll accuse CCME of dishonesty or fraud, unless Jacky responds to Reader10Q’s manipulative demands.

     

    Notice how Reader10Q tells us that BusOnline, a private company, lists its ad-agency contacts, and tries to insinuate that CCME is dishonest or unaccountable because it won’t do likewise. But Reader10Q misses the obvious point that it is precisely because BusOnline is a private, non-publicly-traded company that it can easily list these contacts without consequence—for BusOnline does not have retail and institutional investors and shorts by the hundreds or even thousands snooping around trying to get details from its ad brokers and ad clients.

     

    In other words, BusOnline is in no danger of having its brokers/clients suffer the kind of demands and even harassment to which CCME’s brokers/clients are vulnerable the past 8 months with so many nosy shorts and legitimate investors poking around.

     

    So Reader10Q, in typical shortseller/basher fashion, is misleading his readers by contrasting CCME’s policies with its brokers/clients to BusOnline’s policies. The comparison is NOT VALID and any negative conclusions drawn from such a comparison are also NOT VALID.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:15 PM Reply Like
  • padre86
    , contributor
    Comments (5) | Send Message
     
    The author's entire attack is basically " ..she was further told that L'Oreal does not place advertisement on inter-city long-distance buses or airport buses... " Yet the video clearly shows a L'Oreal ad on a CCME bus screen.

     

    Author and short attack instantly discredited. NEXT!
    25 Feb 2011, 01:25 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Are you saying disclosure to Global Hunter is exempt from Reg FD? What's the basis of that conclusion?

     

    Asking a publicly listed company to answer question publicly is not a threat. I tried to get answers privately from both Ping Luo and Jacky Lam, even before the emails above, for several days to no avail.

     

    When we see evidence of fraud, do you want us to just keep quiet?

     

    For your information, being short is just as legitimate as being long. If you have any complaints about the existence of shorting, please send them to your Congressperson and the SEC.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    boy, you are easily duped.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Please provide any evidence you can find that would suggest that customer contact information is material and therefore subject to reg FD.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:48 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Do you think CCME has time to answer every email/question it receives?

     

    Also, he asked you for the name of your contact. You did not provide to him.

     

    Quid Pro Quo, my friend. Quid Pro Quo.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • stocktradersblog2
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Bus online could be a customer of CCME. Why CCME don't want to disclose that? Because bus-online doesn't want them to. If CCME disclose that it may violate the agreement between them and if CCME disclose that bus-online may lost business because their client will go to CCME directly. I am just showing you a possible scenerio why CCME don't disclose they agency list.
    26 Feb 2011, 02:15 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Bus-online is not a custoemr of CCME. Why are you making up such a thing?
    26 Feb 2011, 08:54 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    The facts:

     

    1) one second-hand report of someone at L'Oreal not knowing CCME.

     

    2) another second-hand report of someone at L'Oreal knowing CCME and explaining how not all advertising avenues are known by everyone in the company.

     

    3) BEA has not verified or provided one piece of concrete evidence that CCME is a fraud.

     

    4) BEA has a NEGATIVE rating (-1331) within Seeking Alpha.

     

    The facts and the people both point to ..... BEA not worthy of anyone's attention beyond entertainment value.
    26 Feb 2011, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    Well, that's that then. BEA can't prove that CCME is the big fraud it appears to be, and the long mob has given him a ton and a half of red thumbs down. We took a vote, and the longs win. Case closed. The perpetually predicted BIG SHORT SQUEEZE !!! is coming on Monday. No, really. It's going to happen this time. Definitely, Monday.

     

    Starts early. Don't miss it.
    26 Feb 2011, 07:12 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Correction to your "facts':

     

    1) I reported that L'Oreal does not know CCME AND it does not advertise on inter-city buses or airport buses.

     

    2) wctbills reports in a comment below: "I called my marketing friend at L'Oreal Shanghai. She's also unaware that they advertise on long-distance buses. But she's not expected to know, bcz they farm it out to ad agencies. That's what she said."
    26 Feb 2011, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    well, you seem to give me at lot of attention, but once again, you are projecting, your description, "not worthy of anyone's attention" fits yourself perfectly.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:23 PM Reply Like
  • Eberndorfer
    , contributor
    Comments (410) | Send Message
     
    @ wyf

     

    Being of Austrian origin, Canadian since a long time and in the international oil industry since 1967, I am in the same boat with you. We will be proven right! If not, I also will lose my savings as heavily as I am now in CCME long.;-)
    6 Mar 2011, 09:23 AM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Hallo Eberndorfer,

     

    Sie sind mit Ihrem Alter und Ihrer Lebenserfahrung sicherlich ein sehr erfahrener Mensch / Investor, vor dem ich großen Respekt habe. Ich habe als privater Investor wie Sie ebenfalls kaum Möglichkeit, herauszufinden, ob ccme die Investoren betrogen hat.

     

    Die Tatsache, dass ich massivst in ccme investiert bin, liegt jedoch daran, dass ich mit meinem gesunden Menschenverstand sagen kann, dass aufgrund des enorm großen Wettbewerbvorteils von ccmes Geschäftsmodell (gegeüber anderen Medienunternehmen) die hoch profitable Gewinnmarge und das exorbitante Wachstum von ccme berechtigt ist. D.h. für mich, das extrem erfolgreiche und verständliche Geschäftsmodell von ccme ist also der Beweis dafür, dass die operativen Zahlen im Geschäftsbericht glaubwürdig sind, auch wenn ich als privater Investor kaum Möglichkeit habe, diese operativen Zahlen irgendwie zu überprüfen.

     

    All diese bisherigen Beschuldigungen von Muddy Waters, Citron Research und Co. wurden bisher NICHT von Deloitte HK bestätigt. Je näher wir uns auf 15.03.11 zubewegen, umso geringer ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass ccme ein Betrugsfall ist. Warren Buffett und John Templeton sind zu ihrem Reichtum gekommen, weil sie in Zeiten der Krise und Unsicherheit immer die besten Unternehmen zum Spottpreis eingekauft haben. Von daher bin ich zuversichtlich, dass am 15.03.11 10-K gewohnt veröffentlicht und ccmes Zahlen bestätigt werden.
    6 Mar 2011, 09:56 AM Reply Like
  • CSMhater
    , contributor
    Comments (388) | Send Message
     
    Typical. When a person is unable to dispute an argument with solid facts of their own, they resort to making personal attacks.
    14 Mar 2011, 03:51 AM Reply Like
  • JoeNatural
    , contributor
    Comments (1083) | Send Message
     
    Dude, you're beyond the status of "lemming." My goodness, can we sound just a little more desperate so we can cover our short positions without getting killed ? I can tell you right now that if you called Apple, they would tell you the same thing as far as not having ever heard of CCME. Now write these next two words down ...... Advertising Agency. Geez, some of you guys have been beat senseless with a stupid stick.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I agree with you. It is my opinion, like yours, that none of the large companies that CCME claims advertises with them have ever heard of them. There is only one reason why? they don't advertise with them.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:53 AM Reply Like
  • Drexion
    , contributor
    Comments (71) | Send Message
     
    You might try contacting Siemens, they are a direct-sales client for CCME from what i've heard.

     

    The company is obviously unwilling to disclose its ad-agency details. Asking for it to do so will not be fruitful. How about asking them to pursue alternative routes? Obviously you believe Ping Luo's verification to be insufficient and unreliable (Personally I do not dismiss her DD).

     

    Would a forensic audit by a separate top4 audit firm suffice? If not, come up with a verification method you believe works outside of them publishing ad-client details. Post those alternative suggestions publicly and send them to management.

     

    Shrug.

     

    -Fernando
    25 Feb 2011, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    If you are going to buy a company, which is what you do when you buy stock (you buy part ownership), there is only one thing that sufficies. You want to verify that they actually sell what they claim to who they claim. Absent that, you cannot verify the companies claims. When the company obfuscates, refuses to respond, provides vague responses, contradicts itself, has a bunch of fraudulent pumpers arguing that you shouldn't verify or it is stupid to verify the operations, and so on, it is pretty easy to tell that the company is a fraud.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • sb8636
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
     
    If Ping received guidance from the company, this would be a gross violation of Reg FD as stated multiple times by reader10Q and myself.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • qspinor
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    So your claiming CCME is using tactics you are now using on your blog? Why trust you over CCME. After your fake data was removed from SA for fraudulent data, hard to get the credibility back. Okay, disclose your sources if your hero of the common investor. Please link your entire e-mail in a file, so as we know you did not quote out of context.

     

    You are the only author I have ever seen on this site ever to have their article removed due to fraudulent data. How is it your not banged from this venue? If CCME is crooked as you claim, how far are you from that if not worst. As a Chinese to Chinese, just cover brother. You have never proven anything, but your fraudulent data was proved right here in front of the world. So a maybe fraudulent or definitely fraudulent. Please explain where you got those spreadsheets? Please disclose as you ask others.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:24 AM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » You are thinking someone else. This is my first blog post on SA.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    As Michael alluded to ... If YOU were Jacky, how would you respond to the thousands and thousands of emails he must be receiving?

     

    If I were Jacky, I would ignore them. So the fact that he even responded to you is in doubt (in my mind).
    25 Feb 2011, 02:10 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    oh yeah, Jackie is receiving thousands and thousands of e-mails. Sure. And Jackie's response is just to ignore all of them. Okay. Wouldn't make much sense then to have a published e-mail site indicating people should contact you there then, would it? I just recommend thinking through these posts before your make them.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Think through? You should take your own advice.

     

    My logic is sound. If you can't rationalize and empathize with Jacky's situation, then that is your problem. End of story.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    well, in the first place, you just make up that he is receiving thousands and thousands of e-mails. There is no reason to think that is the case unless you are talking throughout the year, then many of us probably do.
    second, if he doesn't want people to e-mail him there, then it doesn't make any sense to be advertising that e-mail as a contact.
    And, no, since Jacky is assisting in perpetrating a fraud, I rationalize and empathize with the victims, not the perpetrators.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:04 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    If I were Jacky, and had nothing to hide, I would put a stop to the thousands and thousands of emails, by complying with the SEC Reg FD and submitting an 8-K to the SEC that put on record all the material information that was shown to GH. That includes the customer contact information, so that everybody else could know who GH talked with, to allegedly verify customers.

     

    Was it somebody in the alleged customer company who had authority to speak for the company, or was it some gum chewing secretary, who was paid $1000 to answer a pre-arranged phone call and say " yes". How is anybody going to verify any of those claims, when the company names are given in some BS code?

     

    And documents that provide material support to what otherwise are just numbers in a 10-K are material information. It's one thing to see a 10-K, and quite another to see the documents with bank and tax authority seals.

     

    Plain and simple, having the customer contact information, and access to the documents gives GH an advantage over the rest of us. You longs are the ones who are crowing that the GH is new and material proof of the falsity of the fraud allegations. How is that they do that, without having disclosed any new material information?

     

    Do you people follow any of that? Your beloved Chicom fraud was under attack and sinking fast, then the company used GH to plug up some of the wholes. You rejoiced at the revelations in GH's report as exoneration, now you want to claim they..uh...well... ain't material. You people are ludicrous, and very amusing.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:04 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Your screen-name here on SA may be long, but that doesn't automatically make you smart.

     

    1) my guess that Jacky is getting many emails is a good guess. You don't think people are emailing him (given how much CCME has been written, reported, and blogged about)? We know the moronic writer of this blog did email Jacky (if he's not lying). And if Jacky only got one email, who says he should reply to some stranger?

     

    2) it is common practice for people to sometimes put their email address on a website. Doesn't mean they have to reply to every email - especially if the sender appears to be antagonistic.

     

    3) there is no proof of fraud. And you making illogical statements doesn't change that.

     

    The only person you empathize with is yourself.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:25 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    It might be a better practice to wait till you actual know something, rather than making guesses and conclusions from the guesses, and taking other people to task for disagreeing.
    No, I don't think Jacky is getting some overwhelming amount of e-mails.
    Yes, I think if people are providing their e-mails as a contact person to obtain information, then it is appropriate for them to respond to requests for information. The e-mails were not antagnostic in my opinion, but very professional and appropriate.
    Read the Muddy Waters report and other reports for the overwhelming evidence of fraud. Don't assume they are right, contact the alleged advertising companies and advertising agencies that CCME claims to prove to yourself that CCME's representations are false. Don't rely on me, check it out yourself and you will find out what I am talking about.
    there you go again, like the rest of the pumpers, projecting your characteristics on to me.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Have you checked out anything? Have you provided any hard evidence? Isn't anything you say beyond a pea-brained guess of yours?

     

    Ok, lets look at the original MW report:

     

    1) --- Muddy Waters, LLC believes that CCME is engaging in a
    massive “pump and dump” scheme whereby it significantly
    inflates revenue and profits in order to enrich management
    through earn-outs and stock sales.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    I think most of us would agree that it was MW trying to drive the stock price down to profit off of shorts

     

    2) --- We estimate that CCME’s actual 2009 revenue was no more
    than $17 million (versus $95.9 million it reported).

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    Global Hunter verified 100 million dollars of revenue for 2010 directly from customers. So, MW's estimate is completely wrong (and how did MW come up with their great estimate?).

     

    3) --- The data CCME provides to advertisers shows that it has
    fewer than half of the 27,200 buses it claims to have.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    The vast majority of bus counts has been verified. We also have real "in China" data/sample points that show that there are lots of buses with CCME equipment showing content/advertising.

     

    4) --- The CTR reports that the Company uses to support its
    claims contain gross errors that we conclude are due to
    manipulation by the management.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    These discrepancies have been adequately explained. And are insignificant.

     

    5) --- We estimate that over half of CCME’s network buses do not
    actually play CCME content. Rather, drivers play DVD
    movies that are often provided by passengers.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    MW estimate has not substance. WCTBill has been on countless buses in China and all have been showing CCME content (not movies).

     

    6) --- We caught CCME’s management telling a particularly
    egregious lie – that its new website (switow.com) has
    entered into an agreement with Apple (or one of Apple’s)
    distributors. Neither is true.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    Switow does have an agreement with an authorized Apple reseller in China. This has been verified. Even if CCME stretched the truth about this, it does not change the fact that CCME has 27,000 buses making money for the shareholders.

     

    7) --- Similar to RINO, CCME is an obscure company in its
    industry. Media buyers who would have to know it if
    CCME were to be believed have never even heard the
    Company’s name before.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    CCME is not obscure. It has 50% market share for inter city buses. And has many of the biggest airport express bus lines. We have seen from CCME's own documentation (thanks to Chimin Sang for finding this) that CCME's knows who their top 10 competitors are and none of them are big names such as FCMN or ACMN. Global Hunter has shown that CCME has vibrant and real relationships with media/advertising agencies.

     

    8) --- CCME’s core audience is sub-Greyhound Bus demographic.

     

    -- REBUTTAL --
    Maybe to the MW people they people riding these inter-city buses are sub-Greyhound, but that is an insult to the people of China. Many Chinese middle class ride these buses. Regardless, all that is important is that the advertisers are willing to pay money to CCME to display their ads to these bus passengers.

     

    CONCLUSION [part 1]: MW's case against CCME had (and still has) no substance.
    25 Feb 2011, 09:39 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Analysis of Muddy Waters [Part 2]   

     

    Here's part 2 of my analysis of Muddy Waters.

     

    1) MW: Mgmt owns ~$312 million worth of shares.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    Yes. So? Management still owns this. If management was "pumping and dumping", shouldn't they have sold back in the 20's? Seems mgmt is in for the long haul.

     

    2) MW: In October 2010, a party closely connected to management sold nine million dollars of stock.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    This transaction was basically Starr increasing his stake in CCME (in a sense a share transfer from one insider to another). Once again, if the insider was part of a "pump and dump", why was he selling at $9?

     

    3) MW: CCME wants investors to believe that its advertising revenue comes from large marketers such as Coca-Cola.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    The Due Diligence by Global Hunter has shown CCME does have large marketers advertising through them.

     

    4) MW: CCME Has Little Presence in China’s Two Largest Media Markets: Beijing and Shanghai.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    Well, GH directly verified that there are 3,389 buses in Shanghai and Beijing engaged with CCME. This is nearly 24% of the bus counts that were directly verified. If 24% equates to "little presence", I think MW needs to buy themselves a dictionary.

     

    5) MW: CCME appears focused on Beijing inter-city buses and its airport express.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    Firstly, didn't MW jsut say CCME has little presence in Beijing? Secondly, GH verified advertising clients/revenue from Beijing, as well as Shanghai, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Tianjin, Chengdu, etc. GH also verified contracts and concession fees with bus operations in Beijing, Qingdao, Chongqing, Fujian, Hubei (among others). Seems to me that CCME's focus is darn near the entire country!! And don't forget, Global Hunter didn't come up with their numbers by browsing Chinese websites - They SPOKE DIRECTLY WITH the bus operators.

     

    6) MW: We verified that CCME’s largest relationship does not exist. We spoke with the largest operator in the CTR report and were told that it never had a business relationship with CCME.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    Global Hunter VISITED Shanghai Ba-shi Public Transportation (Group) Co., which confirmed they have 1,892 buses engaged with CCME. Does MW like making outright fabrications?

     

    7) MW: MW said CCME’s Business Has Low Barriers to Entry. MW, and many others, have also tried to hammer on CCME for the "tongzhi" they have with TTAVC – part of the Ministry of Transportation - claiming it doesn't exist, it is meaningless.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    Although it is not an exclusivity agreement (which CCME never claimed), it is a notice of cooperation. And to help get us off the "debate merry-go-round" about what value it has, Global Hunter asked bus operators about the TTAVC notice/document. The bus operators had seen it and said they prefer to use business partners recommended by the government authority. End of story ... let's move on.

     

    8) MW: Our valuation of CCME is currently $5.28, but is subject to change. And MW intends to respond to the misstatements (by Global Hunter) with evidence of the inaccuracies within a reasonable time period.
    -- REBUTTAL --
    If MW is so sure of fraud, why not come out with an updated report and change its valuation of CCME? Why wait? And why do they care (if they no longer hold a position)?

     

    CONCLUSION [part 2]: Muddy Waters went for broke, and we now know for sure that it was just a scam for them to make money. Maybe they made their money, but there was no substance to their claims.

     

    SO, pea brain . . . Do YOU have anything beyond your guesses and false accusations to add to this discussion?
    25 Feb 2011, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • Nonsense blogger
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Reader10Q,

     

    Anyone can post under a different name as I am. You are writing just like Chimin and making undisclosing claims just the same. So if you are posting under a different, it makes no difference. We can all do the same. The point is, disclose as you have ask others. Please link the entire e-mail traffic and your "friend". I can easily post, a "friend" talked to Loreal and confirmed each relationships. Who this is I can not disclose. I'll do one better say this "friend" works in Loreal. So please disclose your source.
    26 Feb 2011, 03:07 AM Reply Like
  • Nonsense blogger
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Anyone can post under a different name as I am. You are writing just like Chimin and making unproven claims just the same. So if you are posting under a different, it makes no difference. We can all do the same. The point is, disclose as you have ask others. Please link the entire e-mail traffic and your "friend". I can easily post, my "friend" talked to Loreal and confirmed each relationships. Who this is I can not disclose. I'll even do one better say my "friend" works in Loreal. So please disclose your source.
    26 Feb 2011, 03:10 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    The problem with your rebuttals is that you haven't written a single truthful statement.
    26 Feb 2011, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    You could easily contact L'Oreal and disprove the article. Since you don't, I can only assume that you already know that large companies are not advertising with CCME as they claim.
    26 Feb 2011, 08:59 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Whatever.

     

    Just an FYI ... If you search using 中国高速频道 as CCME's name, you get more hits/results than searching with the Chinese name of Focus Media (FCMN). This is true even if you do an advanced search with a date range limited to early and mid 2010.

     

    It is you who is avoiding and denying the truth. Hence, your viewpoints are worthless.

     

    Have a nice day, my dim-witted friend.
    26 Feb 2011, 12:28 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    There you go again, projecting with your comments about being "dim-witted".
    For whatever reason, whether because you fit your own description or whether for more sinister reasons of fraud, you repeatedly pump this fraud. However, you cannot make false claims sound true, nor can you make dumb ideas sound smart.
    26 Feb 2011, 01:34 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Once again, I provided facts. Something concrete that people can go look at and verify.

     

    However, you have yet to provide anything other than your opinion.

     

    Oh ... another thing ... I am not pumping or promoting anything. I have simply asked you a few times to support your statements with facts, not innuendo and hearsay.
    26 Feb 2011, 06:38 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    You obviously are pumping CCME. If you were legit, you would immediately want evidence from CCME that L'Oreal was actually advertising with them or you would want to check with L'Oreal. It would be simple to do.
    Instead, you want to make all these posts containing all these weird contortions of logic. This is really a simple thing, but in your haste and fervor to pump this thing, you have to make all these twisted illogical assertions.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:26 PM Reply Like
  • CSMhater
    , contributor
    Comments (388) | Send Message
     
    qspinor:

     

    Unfortunately, you are not the first person on Seeking Alpha who has been unable to keep their facts straight.
    14 Mar 2011, 04:22 AM Reply Like
  • Streetdog
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    As a former ad agency executive, I can tell you that I'd never return your call and would be ticked at any media outlet for asking me to accept contact by someone without capacity.

     

    From the placing agency's perspective:
    1) Why should I give a hoot about a CCME investor?
    2) Why should I discuss any aspect of my business with some guy who managed to get my number?

     

    Get a life...
    25 Feb 2011, 11:27 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Perhaps we now know why you are a former ad agency executive. I hope you can get a job.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:02 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    1)Why should you give a hoot about some fly-by-night 'analyst'?
    2)Why should you discuss your business with some fly-by-night 'analyst'?
    3)If you are willing to discuss your business with some some fly-by-night 'analyst', why not tell the rest of us about it?

     

    You are just silly.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • UpstateChris
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    While interesting, I think your most important statement was:

     

    "It's true that the account I am giving here is not indepedently verifiable as is (though you could contact L'Oreal Shanghai yourself to check). I am asking others to take my word for it to a degree. The burden of proof and disclosure, however, is on the company."

     

    You state you are short, and therefore have an obvious financial gain to be made if your accusations are taken seriously. So my options, as a retail investor performing due diligence is to either:

     

    1) Believe you, a random, unknown person posting on a free website making a claim that by your own admission can not ever be verified, knowing that you will make money if your claim leads to a decline in price, OR

     

    2) Believe a company that has Global Hunter, Starr, WCBills, Deloitte (who completed last years 10K and signed off on each Q since then, and it almost certainly completed with this years 10K without so much as a single whisper that they would resign as the auditor - which they would obviously due if your allegations were true), several people in China who attended and video taped the investor conference and ads running on buses, etc.

     

    I do not know you or anything about you, and your story could be 100% true. It may NOT however be for the reasons your are suggesting. This may very well turn out to be similar to the Muddy Waters BS that CCME did not have a way to sell Apple, which a dozen people have proven wrong. I simply do not know.

     

    What I do know is that given the option to beleive you and make a financial investment based on your allegations that cannot be verified and knowing, by your own admission that you would financially gain if I did beleive you - versus believing companies that have put their entire reputation on the line and millions upon millions of dollars - well, you lose.

     

    Best of luck in your position, though I doubt you will gain from it.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:29 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    It would be very easy to prove the author wrong, why doesn't CCME, you, or anyone else just contact L'Oreal and find out if they advertise on intercity buses in China.
    Oh, don't tell me, it would be stupid to try, you could never get that information, etc, etc.
    For all that say that, the only thing I can say is don't ever apply for the job of investigator. A good, novice investigator, even without any training, education, or experience, could easily get that information if they exhibited persistence.
    But, oh, please explain to us how stupid it is to verify CCME's sales and customers to determine if it is real.
    Tell us again how we should just rely and depend on others.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (298) | Send Message
     
    Because it is a waste of time as many investors realize that the claims agains CCME are false. It would be stupid for CCME to play into the hands of the shorts. It has nothing to do with trying to get the correct information but how the individual went about and assuming that his research is correct and presenting it as factual evidence against CCME when they did not get the correct contact or check the correct sources. CCME needs to continue to ignore these bashers and continue on with their business and let the 10-K, cash, buyback, and dividend do the talking.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:19 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » As I mentioned in the post, if the company had its major customers sign statements verify the amount of business they did with CCME, that would have addressed the most serious doubts about the company. They could still do that today if they wanted to. It's not a heavy burden on customers to sign a statement stating how much business did with someone. Remember this is a public company. They can't expect to operate with the level of privacy that a private company can.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Where's the retraction?
    25 Feb 2011, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • Michael Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (298) | Send Message
     
    Again, there is no point for them to do that. The 10-K will speak volumes as you can rest assured that Deloitte knows the correct contacts. Quit trying to play these stupid games. If you didnt post your stupid blog on Ihub I never would have know about the stupidity you have presented and have wasted my time with several posts on this thread. I would say it is best for all to ignore these ignorant shorts as it just gives them a louder voice of ignorance and makes them feel important. You dont even deserve the time of day that you are getting right now
    25 Feb 2011, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    If investors can't verify the sales and customers of CCME, then they have no basis to say the CCME is legitimate. You are included in that. So, why are you pumping a company as legitimate when you do not know because you have not verified the sales or customers?
    25 Feb 2011, 12:51 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Did you post a retraction and an apology to the author? I haven't seen it.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:52 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    anyone can write anything in a 10k. Since the day of the first audit, auditors have signed thousands, no tens of thousands if no millions, of audits where the company was committing fraud and the auditor signed off on the audit.
    When the auditors start verifying satisfactorily that the sales and customers are real, I will start putting faith in auditors, but they haven't done that successfully in the past, don't do it successfully currently, and won't do it successfuly in the future.
    If you think they do, then you missed Enron, Global Crossing, Worldcom, Bear Stearns, and the thousands and thousands of other frauds that were signed off on by large auditors.
    your descriptions of 'stupid, etc" really apply accurately to your posts, not to those you attack. It is called projection and you fraudulent pumpers seem to do is ad naseum.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Yet another disingenuous statement. If you don't believe an audit disclosure in the financials you certainly wouldn't have a problem claiming said statement was fraudulent. The only way around this would be to provide the employment history of the individual signing along with their contact information and that of their boss and potentially the CEO. There is no end to the detail you would require to stop claiming fraud, all of which is a violation of the individual's privacy and respect for the customer relationship. But we all know that is likely the reason this keeps resurfacing. If you could bait the company into harming their business relationships in an attempt to respond to these unfounded claims you would clearly benefit.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I would respond to your statement but it makes no sense. I don't want to know the contact information of hte individual signing, or their boss, or their CEO.
    If I am going to buy part ownership in a company, which is what purchasing stock in a company means, i would verify that the company actually has the sales and customers it claims. Perhaps you wouldn't. Fine. But you wouldn't know the company has those sales and customers unless you verified it.
    My point is simply that because a company is being audited doesn't mean it is not a fraud. It doesn't mean it is a fraud either. An audit just is not anything to hang your hat on to be convinced that a company is not a fraud. There are millions of people who have lost a great deal of money with that naive, simple notion.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:41 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Please provide reference to any SEC or legal guideline that suggests this is a standard that should be applied to any public company.

     

    Please also provide your study that shows the privacy of employee contact information is unimportant to companies and not a "heavy burden" as you state.

     

    Or just supply a reference list of companies that provide this level of disclosure so we can understand the standard you wish to apply to CCME
    25 Feb 2011, 01:52 PM Reply Like
  • singletrackrider
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    There is no point for them to do that? No point in providing rock solid credibility? No point in have the share price return to it's highs? Are you serious?
    25 Feb 2011, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again, I can't understand your post as it makes no sense. You appear not to I said I didn't care for the private information of the person signing the audit. I don't know what difference you think that would make or why you think I wanted that. I certainly never said I did.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Glad to hear you wouldn't need the contact information of the individual signing an agreement. So in summary, you won't rely on Deloitte in their audi of the financials but you would rely on a company released document signed by an anonymous individual you couldn't contact. What was the point of this blog again?
    25 Feb 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    The author's claims are riddled with flaws, so why should an investor waste his/her time to disprove them?

     

    "I spoke to a professor at MIT who says he has never heard of Einstein. I can't tell you the professor's name, but you should trust me. And although Einstein is dead, someone from his family should answer our questions and prove that he actually authored the theory of relativity"
    25 Feb 2011, 02:17 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Because we have yet to receive any definitive verification that any of the companies that CCME claims is actually advertising with them. I actually offered tens of thousands of dollars in reward money for such information, but still none. I have yet to see the equivalent of this, except in fraud cases.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Does Google provide signed declarations from its clients/customers showing how much business they do with Google?

     

    Maybe Google is a fraud too.

     

    Helloooooo? Anybody in there?
    25 Feb 2011, 05:31 PM Reply Like
  • rru2s
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    "I actually offered tens of thousands of dollars in reward money"

     

    ...A person with your reputation for dishonesty would also tell me that you are holding a one million dollar inheritance waiting for some unsuspecting random email addresee, while you ask them to please wire you 10 grand to your Nigerian bank account to cover your legal fees to process the inheritance............

     

    By the way I really liked that 35,000 word summary of rebuttals several posts above by rex_remes!!! Excellent work, thanks!

     

    BSeconAnal - please provide a point by point response to Rex_Remes two compilations of the major allegations rebuttals. If you do not I will assume all you know how to do is perform level 2 FUD bashing and won't bother ever again reading one single post from you. Thanks in advance.
    26 Feb 2011, 12:43 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again with your projection, you describe yourself perfectly when you talk about your "reputation for dishonesty".
    Just read the Muddy Waters report and do follow up to see the truth of it. Rex_Remes work is so poor on its face it deserves no point by point response. He has to make a worthwhile point on its face first. When he fails to make a viable point, his own words undercut themselves.
    Muddy Waters will be providing a response to the company they indicated.
    26 Feb 2011, 01:37 PM Reply Like
  • rru2s
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    No point by point response. That is all I ask for. Still waiting.
    26 Feb 2011, 02:04 PM Reply Like
  • John John
    , contributor
    Comments (22) | Send Message
     
    Business Economics Analyst:
    After reading your huge amount of post, I have to come to a conclusion that no matter what facts are, you will continue to claim ccme is a fraud for the reason that you hold short position of ccme. It is your right to do whatever you want with your money and say whatever you want. However, if you think you can convince any longs with your argument, you are wasting your time. I have 100k+ of ccme at average of $13.00 and I am not selling. I shall add up to 2 millions shares. Let us see who will win this battle.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    You are simply wrong. I have posted many times that all I need is proof from one of these large companies that they advertise with CCME. Should be incredibly simple. I even offered a reward of abotu $25,000.00 for that information at one point.
    However, no one can provide the information because it doesn't exist. Everyone who checks finds out that CCME doesn't advertise with any of these companies they claim to. It is a big fraud and hoax.
    If you were legitimate, obviously, you would want the same information. The fact that you don't calls into question your claims. You appear to be just shamelessly pumping this fraud.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    When you are proven incorrect, will you retract the accusation?
    25 Feb 2011, 11:35 AM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Of course.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Why do you hide your identity? Why do you hide the identity of your supposed sources?
    25 Feb 2011, 11:49 AM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Here is proof of an L'Oreal ad running on a CCME monitor in China.

     

    ccme-info.xanga.com/74.../

     

    You simply haven't done any real DD on this, CCME is downstream from the manufacturer with about 70% of their ads, you need to find the middle man that made the transaction.

     

    Now retract your accusation. And publish your identity if you are going to accuse a public company.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    A L'Oreal commercial is running on my tv right now. Doesn't prove that L'Oreal paid me money to run the commerical on my television.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:06 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Still waiting on that retraction...
    25 Feb 2011, 12:08 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » The person in charge of their China advertising placement told my friend that they do not do ads on long-distance buses and airport buses. To disprove that, you have to show how much revenue CCME gets from L'Oreal. Showing a video of the ads doesn't prove the revenue. Companies can show "fake customers" to puff themselves up. A signed statement from the ad agency handling the L'Oreal account stating the amount paid to CCME for those ads would be much better. There is no good reason why this should be kept a secret. In fact, public companies are required to disclose the amount of revenue from major customers in their SEC filings. CCME said in its filing that no customer constituted more than 10%, so it disclosed no major customers.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:46 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I just reviewed the video WCTBills posted. If you look at the monitor on the bus carefully, it's promotional ad by CCME showcasing its customers. It's not a L'Oreal ad, but a CCME ad with a woman sitting in front of a TV screen speaking about purported CCME customers.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:57 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    They will ignore this one. You are dealing with a howling mob here, who do not want to know that they are being defrauded. Weird.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    So you are a lawyer... I wonder how your M&A clients would feel if they found out you were short-selling a company while making accusations with no evidence whatsoever. Is that why you are sneaking around anonymously? Would you be willing to defend your statements in front of your clients?

     

    You've been informed that the company doesn't sell ad slots directly to manufacturers. You have been shown a video of the ads playing on a CCME monitor. The company and independent third parties have verified the contracts, and an independent auditor has verified financial statements. These parties have are not making these claims anonymously, they are publicly standing behind their statements. And yet you continue to hide behind your anonymity and make accusations against a public company with literally no evidence. As a lawyer you know you are on thin ice.

     

    This is typical of the CCME short attack - provide no evidence or forged evidence, never retract statements when proven wrong, and claim that real evidence and verification by public professionals is falsified. From a professional perspective you are dipping to a real low, "reader10Q".
    25 Feb 2011, 01:12 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Lets see, you criticize the author for being anonymous. And, you are anonymous. You falsely accuse the author of providing no evidence, when you yourself actually provide no evidence.
    I could go on but I think the appropriate term is 'hypocritical".
    25 Feb 2011, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    reader10Q

     

    please put on your glasses and take a further and deeper look on the screen hanging left over the head of the woman shown in the bus screen.

     

    The name L'Oreal was shown shortly on the screen hanging left over the head of the woman in the bus screen..
    25 Feb 2011, 01:22 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I feel a duty to fight fraud. I don't think my clients would object.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I have a duty to fight fraud.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:35 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    "I feel a duty to fight fraud. I don't think my clients would object."

     

    You're short-selling a company and posting an unsupported accusation on an investor website. You have no evidence at all that CCME didn't sell these ad slots to an ad agency. There are multiple professional third-parties that have verified contracts and financial statements, and you provide no evidence whatsoever.

     

    You know what you are doing is unethical, your clients and peers would feel the same way. That's why you are concealing your identity.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:36 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for confirming this isn't a material disclosure. What was your point again?
    25 Feb 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » It's just a CCME ad cycling through its list of purported clients.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:57 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    1) are you claiming L'Oreal or some ad agency paid you money to show that ad on your tv?

     

    2) do you have video proof of that ad being shown on your tv?

     

    3) have you filed taxes with the government paying taxes on the revenue earned from showing the ad on your tv?
    25 Feb 2011, 05:38 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    1. Well, if I claimed L'Oreal or some ad agency was paying me money to show the ad on my tv, it wouldn't make it any more true that CCME's claims.
    2. L'Oreal's ads are being shown on virtually everyone's tv, if you don't know that, then perhaps you should educate yourself a little.
    3. That is definltely a problem for CCME, as their reports of income to their own govenment don't match their reports to the SEC. CCME actually claims very little revenue to the government in China. Much more believable, although who knows, most companies in China has 3 sets of books. Hard to ever get the truth out of them.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:45 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Ok. So forget your claims - we know your claims are not likely very credible.

     

    CCME says they place L'Oreal ads.
    We have proof that L'Oreal ads are being shown on CCME buses.
    DTT has audited the books that show CCME is getting paid.

     

    Those are the concrete facts.

     

    Do you have any facts?
    25 Feb 2011, 09:51 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again, with the projection, it is your claims that we all know aren't credible.
    Read the Muddy Waters report, the Citron report, Chimin Sang's reports, this article, etc. etc.
    Or better yet, just read CCME's filings, press releases, presentations, and you will read one of the most ridiculous stories I have ever heard (although I admit that Yong's story is even more ridicolous.
    Why are you pumping this ridiculous fraud? For anyone with intellligence, you are not presenting yourself in a flattering light.
    Have you really been fooled, or is something more sinister going on?
    26 Feb 2011, 09:04 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I ask you again . . . Do you have any facts?

     

    Repeating the same meaningless drivel over and over does not accomplish anything.
    26 Feb 2011, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I am sorry that you can't find and read the resources that I recommended. No wonder you struggle to understand the CCME fraud. Again, I recommend a course in logic and in investigation, you should find it immensely helpful. If you master those concepts, you will be able to see the fraud directly from just reading CCME's SEC filings, as I did.
    26 Feb 2011, 01:38 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I have read the reports from Muddy Waters, Citron, and Chimin. Poorly written. Lacking substance. Obviously skewed by their personal positions in the stock.

     

    I have read the SEC filings. Nothing special. Look like most other filings from public companies.

     

    Thanks for your sarcasm. Makes me chuckle.

     

    Do you have any facts? Have you done any DD that you can share with us?
    26 Feb 2011, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again, I would suggest a logic course and a investigating course. In addition, now, I can see you need an English course. Apparently, you can't evaluate writing either. However, it appears that there is a much more sinister motive at hand.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:30 PM Reply Like
  • Streetdog
    , contributor
    Comments (31) | Send Message
     
    Would you publish the name and number of your friend at L'Oreal Shangha so anyone who wishes to do so can verify that person's capacity and relationship to L'Oreal? The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this person actually exists as you say. Get the point?
    25 Feb 2011, 11:37 AM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » For privacy and safety reasons, I'd rather not release my friend's name. The burden is on the public company to provide evidence of its customers and business.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:50 AM Reply Like
  • Michael Anderson
    , contributor
    Comments (298) | Send Message
     
    but you expect CCME to disclose information to you? The burden of the company will lie in its 10-K signed off by Deloitte. $10s of millions in upcoming buybacks. $10 million in dividends. Over $170 million in cash(probably over $200 million by now). Research done by real firms. Those are your burdens of proof. Good luck with all of that upcoming. They dont need to play the shorts games, they will be just fine.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:57 AM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » CCME should disclose to the general public what it disclosed to Global Hunter. Read Reg FD: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    25 Feb 2011, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    The company is under no such burden. Please provide the source of your continued assertions
    25 Feb 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Sounds like the same standard you refuse to accept for the employee of customer. They would also prefer privacy and safety and that's why you will never get anyone to agree that it should be a disclosure standard.
    25 Feb 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    You are really agitated over this one Marty. Hurts, don't it.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:11 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Reg FD typically has to do with earnings reports and other market moving announcements. Verification of an existing client does not fit into this category of material information.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:58 PM Reply Like
  • falanke
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    Please watch the latest ccme-info.xanga.com video blog. You can see L'Oreal ad on CCME system.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:40 AM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » It's a CCME ad with a woman sitting in front of TV monitor listing CCME customers. It's not a L'Oreal ad.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    reader10Q

     

    please put on your glasses and take a further and deeper look on the screen hanging left over the head of the woman shown in the bus screen.

     

    The name L'Oreal was shown shortly on the screen hanging left over the head of the woman in the bus screen. It is the ad of LÒreal!
    25 Feb 2011, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    L'Oreal ads are being played on TV's all over the world. That doesn't mean they paid a time to the company or people that installed the TVs. That is what CCME claims to have done, installed the TVs and hard disk drives on the buses. Wow, that must be worth tens of millions. Well, I am here to tell you if you can't figure it out yourself - no it isn't. It isn't worth hardly anything. In fact, if you can believe this, CCME actually paid the bus companies money for providing the bus companies the service of installing the TVs and disk drives. I don't know about you, but if I am going to buy a bunch of tv screens and hard disks for a bus company and install them on the bus, i am going to ask to be paid. I am not going to pay them. That was really CCME's best chance by far to make any money. I don't think hardly anyone is going to pay them to play dvds or tapes with their ads on them. Nobody will watch. They will bring their own dvds and tapes and play them. They will turn off the tv or turn down the volume. And so on and so on.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • falanke
    , contributor
    Comments (78) | Send Message
     
    It's on a CCME embedded ad. Embedded ads are paid by CCME's agencies. See the blog's latest clarification on that...
    25 Feb 2011, 01:49 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Have you ever been on a bus with CCME tv/advertising? If not, then you have no idea what passengers are doing.

     

    Please provide informed opinions. Otherwise, please take your unsubstantiated statements elsewhere.
    25 Feb 2011, 06:02 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I have been on many buses and I know how people are.
    You claim the companies advertising don't even know they are advertising with CCME, so they haven't been on buses with CCME tv/advertising, but they are making the decisions what is being done with the advertising money (believe me, they just don't leave it to the sole decisions of the advertising agencies). They can make those decisions because they know about advertising, the different platforms, what is effective, and what people are like, which I do as well.
    If you think it is different than I am describing, you don't really understand people at all.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:48 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    So, your answer is "NO". You have not been on an inter-city or airport bus in China that is showing CCME content.

     

    Thank you for your honesty.
    25 Feb 2011, 09:56 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    correct, I am not one of the extremely poor that use that transportation. I can take the subway or train.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:05 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Once again, you show your complete ignorance of the facts.

     

    With each of your postings, you do more and more damage to your credibility.
    26 Feb 2011, 12:45 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again, with the project, you describe yourself perfectly when you talk about your doing "more and more damage to your credibility" and "your complete ignorance of the facts."
    26 Feb 2011, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    You are quite interesting.

     

    You don't provide any facts. And you often use my words in your responses.

     

    Are you capable of any unique thoughts?
    26 Feb 2011, 06:53 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Are you capable of a unique thought? - again, that is a good question to ask yourself, you appear to be just replaying the pump and dump fraud schtick on CCME.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • fingerscrossed
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    "some college kid" - Rick Pearson
    25 Feb 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • UpstateChris
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    v.youku.com/v_show/id_...

     

    A number of bus videos, including a clip of a L'Oreal ad on a CCME monitor.

     

    In other words - your ENTIRE blog, just proven to be fake. Thanks and have a nice day.
    25 Feb 2011, 11:52 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    L'Oreal plays commercials on virtually every channel. If you have live television on the right channels, you can see it. If you tape it, you can play it on any tv with a tape player. However, that doesn't prove that L'Oreal is paying you to play the television ad.
    So, you see, your post is incorrect that the playing of a L'Oreal commercial on a tv screen on a bus shows that L'Oreal is paying CCME anything.
    If you would like a reference for a basic logic class, please let me know.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:09 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    And a posting that says L'Oreal doesn't pay to place ads on CCME buses because of what one employee supposedly says is equally incorrect/illogical.

     

    See you in logic class, my friend.
    25 Feb 2011, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    right, but if it were untrue, it would be very easy for teh company or someone else to prove it.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:49 PM Reply Like
  • BlueSkiesLP
    , contributor
    Comments (11) | Send Message
     
    So the actual videos in China, running on CCME contracted buses, containing L'Oreal advertising are FAKE? CCME is running l'Oreal ads without l'Oreal or its agency knowing about it, all to dupe a few american investors? Is this the case with the Coke ads? Also fake ads, being run to keep the scam going? Same with Siemens? Same with KFC? Nike?

     

    Or is WCT also a fake? Planted in China by management? The buses with random passengers and homemade footage by WCT a fabrication, really done in a slick studio in Beijing. His blog and identity are really CCME management in disguise. Global Hunter, a firm that cover more than a dozen other companies entirely set up to perpetrate this scam for CCME's benefit? Rate cards, Web sites, investor conferences, Forbes Articles, all fabrications to make us believe this great conspiracy? Starr brought into the mix to validate the whole thing...how much are they getting paid to play along? Everyone has a price right? Oh, I forgot Deloitte...they are also known to take a little on the side right?

     

    Is this how you explain this whole situation?

     

    You are Chimin Sang, MW or Citron or one of the short funds they work for or your are TRULY DELUSIONAL.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:03 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Well, according to your flawed logic, none of the frauds must not have occurred. I am sure that you must not believe Bernie Madoff was a fraud, Enron must not have been a fraud, etc., etc. I could go on and on with thousands. In fact, much stupider to think they are frauds than CCME, because how many more people must have been involved.
    I suggest a basic logic or argumentation or reasoning class for you. Your post demonstrated a lack of basic reasoning.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    How many buses are portrayed on that video showing L'Oreal ads? Is it thousands? You are extrapolating a bit aren't you? You are not a very useful shill.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:14 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    BlueSkies logic is not flawed.

     

    Enron's fraud was primarily one dimensional. They hid their losses. Simple, yet huge.

     

    What you are suggesting (and BlueSkies is refuting) is that a huge web and conspiracy of deceit is occurring with CCME. BlueSkies reasoning is solid. Your repeating of jibes and sarcasm does not change this.
    25 Feb 2011, 06:45 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Enron's fraud was one dimensional? Come again? In English, this time. If you think Enron's fraud wasn't vastly larger and more complicated that CCME's, then you might want to go back and study it.
    But whatever, that is one of the most common responses by fraudsters, oh, their couldn't be fraud, there would have to be some huge web of conspiracy and deceit. Perhaps, you should go back and check the record, it was one of Enron's common responses as well.
    Lets try this, there is already a name for this logical flaw, why don't you see if you can figure it out and name the logical flaw you are trying to promote?
    25 Feb 2011, 07:52 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Do you enjoy rambling on with incoherent comments?

     

    Once again, please answer me this ... Do you have any verifiable proof of fraud? And saying "so and so said such and such" is not proof of anything.
    25 Feb 2011, 10:00 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    The usual suspects come out in droves to drown out any skeptical voice. You will all disappear. The SEC is about to drop the hammer on all the Chicom frauders:

     

    www.businessinsider.co...
    25 Feb 2011, 12:24 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    phinance101,

     

    tell this to Warren Buffett about Chinese fraud.

     

    He made billions on Petrochina and also billions on BYD. Both of them are Chinese company. I myself regret deeply that I did saw the potential of Petrochina.
    25 Feb 2011, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    wyf,

     

    How much does Warren own of this crap? Or any other Chinese reverse merger frauder? Try to say something relevant.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:12 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    He does not own anything with an earning less than 100 million because investing in small cap will not significantly influence his 50 billion dollar portfolio!
    25 Feb 2011, 05:36 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    phinance101

     

    your desperate trying to talk me out of ccme shares does not work. You are free to short ccme based on your assumption that ccme is a fraud. It is not my money that you lose.
    25 Feb 2011, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    wyf,

     

    I hope you keep your shares. Buy more. Choke on them. You are a dupe, and you deserve to lose your money. The hammer is about to drop.

     

    www.google.com/search?...
    25 Feb 2011, 06:15 PM Reply Like
  • Logan Hanson
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Quote from the Businessweek article that you just posted to:
    "The SEC has identified “hundreds” of such small companies “where about 100 percent, not 95 percent, 100 percent of the operations are in the People’s Republic of China” and the financial statements are signed by a small U.S. auditor, Wayne Carnall, chief accountant of the SEC’s division of corporation finance, said at a Public Company Accounting Oversight Board meeting in April."

     

    Does that sound like Deliotte to you? I too would be extremely nervous investing in a company that was audited by a tiny US firm, no doubt about it. But Deliotte has a lot more to lose and much bigger clients to worry about.

     

    Also the fact that it is 15 days until they have to issue an opinion and they haven't resigned yet means that the audit is complete. If you are short, I strongly suggest closing out now and walking away a winner because even if it is a fraud, when Deliotte signs off on it, it is going to seriously spike and your short will be closed by the broker until you went short right at the peak.
    27 Feb 2011, 03:51 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    That's one way to look at it Logan. You can rely on Deloitte China. The SEC/PCAOB does not have any problem with any company that it is not even allowed to inspect . They are going to continue to get a free pass.

     

    Actually Logan, the SEC is very soon going to kick to the curb those companies that have not been inspected per the PCAOB rules. Deloitte China will no longer be permitted to pretend to audit companies that are listed on US exchanges. CCME will have to find a real auditor, if it hasn't turned PINK by then.
    27 Feb 2011, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    What does Deloitte have to lose? They have audited plenty of companies that turned about to be committing fraud and people like you keep talking about their reputation. Why don't you educate yourself and take a look at the fraudulent companies Deloitte has audited in the past? What difference will it make that CCME is one more?
    27 Feb 2011, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • TacticalTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (38) | Send Message
     
    Yes, Deloitte has nothing to lose by signing off on a fraudulent 10-K. Business Economics Analyst has his 898th brilliant contribution to the SeekinaAlpha community.
    27 Feb 2011, 06:19 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    yeah, genius, why don't you tell us all the companies that have committed fraud that Deloitte signed there 10ks? What exactly did they lose?
    28 Feb 2011, 12:27 AM Reply Like
  • theericman
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Shorties here is the deal. Take this advice from a generous long from yahoo board: "Well, please tell the person who "worked at the headquarter" that L'Oreal's legal department shall be aware that a NASDAQ public listed company unauthorizedly used L'Oreal' name in a official Investment bank analyst report. L'Oreal shall issue a cease and desist letter to both CCME and Global Hunter. Well, CCME, Global Hunter have their reputations on the line and L'Oreal needs to protect its brand name. come on! this "L'Oreal headquarter" person is facing a great opportunity for a promotion - he/she is given an opportunity to L'Oreal's name! What is he/she waiting for?

     

    By the way, if L'Oreal sent out the cease and desist letter to CCME and Luo Ping, it would send CCME price to 2 dollars. come on shorts, what are you waiting for? call L'Oreal headquarter and report it. " NOW, Go get'em shorties!!!
    25 Feb 2011, 12:31 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Why don't you do it? Whether or not L'Oreal decides to do anything about it, you might be able to find out from L'Oreal that they don't advertise on CCME buses like CCME claims.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    You're the one that says L'Oreal does not advertise on CCME buses.

     

    The onus is on you, my friend.
    25 Feb 2011, 06:47 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I think it was the author of the article. It is obvious to me that no large company that CCME claims to advertise on their buses does so. If you want to figure it out to, read all of CCME's SEC filings, press releases, etc. It is one ridiculous, absurd story. If you can't see that, that is your problem.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    I find it quite interesting that you claim to be a securities attorney, you mistakenly characterize the interaction with Ping Luo as a violation of Reg FD and you cite Wikipedia when emailing a public company CFO.

     

    The SEC in discussing this rule was quite concerned over individuals in situations like this using the rule to reduce information flows rather than increase the widespread dissemination of same. A section that discusses this follows:

     

    Final Rule:
    Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

     

    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
    17 CFR Parts 240, 243, and 249
    Release Nos. 33-7881, 34-43154, IC-24599, File No. S7-31-99
    RIN 3235-AH82
    Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading

     

    AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission.

     

    ACTION: Final rule.

     

    SUMMARY: The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting new rules to address three issues: the selective disclosure by issuers of material nonpublic information; when insider trading liability arises in connection with a trader's "use" or "knowing possession" of material nonpublic information; and when the breach of a family or other non-business relationship may give rise to liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. The rules are designed to promote the full and fair disclosure of information by issuers, and to clarify and enhance existing prohibitions against insider trading.

     

    EFFECTIVE DATE: The new rules and amendments will take effect October 23, 2000.

     

    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard A. Levine, Sharon Zamore, or Jacob Lesser, Office of the General Counsel at (202) 942-0890; Amy Starr, Office of Chief Counsel, Division of Corporation Finance at (202) 942-2900.

     

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Securities and Exchange Commission today is adopting new rules: Regulation FD,1 Rule 10b5-1,2 and Rule 10b5-2.3 Additionally, the Commission is adopting amendments to Form 8-K.4

     

    I. Executive Summary

     

    We are adopting new rules and amendments to address the selective disclosure of material nonpublic information by issuers and to clarify two issues under the law of insider trading. In response to the comments we received on the proposal, we have made several modifications, as discussed below, in the final rules.

     

    Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) is a new issuer disclosure rule that addresses selective disclosure. The regulation provides that when an issuer, or person acting on its behalf, discloses material nonpublic information to certain enumerated persons (in general, securities market professionals and holders of the issuer's securities who may well trade on the basis of the information), it must make public disclosure of that information. The timing of the required public disclosure depends on whether the selective disclosure was intentional or non-intentional; for an intentional selective disclosure, the issuer must make public disclosure simultaneously; for a non-intentional disclosure, the issuer must make public disclosure promptly. Under the regulation, the required public disclosure may be made by filing or furnishing a Form 8-K, or by another method or combination of methods that is reasonably designed to effect broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public.

     

    Rule 10b5-1 addresses the issue of when insider trading liability arises in connection with a trader's "use" or "knowing possession" of material nonpublic information. This rule provides that a person trades "on the basis of" material nonpublic information when the person purchases or sells securities while aware of the information. However, the rule also sets forth several affirmative defenses, which we have modified in response to comments, to permit persons to trade in certain circumstances where it is clear that the information was not a factor in the decision to trade.

     

    Rule 10b5-2 addresses the issue of when a breach of a family or other non-business relationship may give rise to liability under the misappropriation theory of insider trading. The rule sets forth three non-exclusive bases for determining that a duty of trust or confidence was owed by a person receiving information, and will provide greater certainty and clarity on this unsettled issue.

     

    II. Selective Disclosure: Regulation FD

     

    A. Background

     

    As discussed in the Proposing Release,5 we have become increasingly concerned about the selective disclosure of material information by issuers. As reflected in recent publicized reports, many issuers are disclosing important nonpublic information, such as advance warnings of earnings results, to securities analysts or selected institutional investors or both, before making full disclosure of the same information to the general public. Where this has happened, those who were privy to the information beforehand were able to make a profit or avoid a loss at the expense of those kept in the dark.

     

    We believe that the practice of selective disclosure leads to a loss of investor confidence in the integrity of our capital markets. Investors who see a security's price change dramatically and only later are given access to the information responsible for that move rightly question whether they are on a level playing field with market insiders.

     

    Issuer selective disclosure bears a close resemblance in this regard to ordinary "tipping" and insider trading. In both cases, a privileged few gain an informational edge -- and the ability to use that edge to profit -- from their superior access to corporate insiders, rather than from their skill, acumen, or diligence. Likewise, selective disclosure has an adverse impact on market integrity that is similar to the adverse impact from illegal insider trading: investors lose confidence in the fairness of the markets when they know that other participants may exploit "unerodable informational advantages" derived not from hard work or insights, but from their access to corporate insiders.6 The economic effects of the two practices are essentially the same. Yet, as a result of judicial interpretations, tipping and insider trading can be severely punished under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, whereas the status of issuer selective disclosure has been considerably less clear.7

     

    Regulation FD is also designed to address another threat to the integrity of our markets: the potential for corporate management to treat material information as a commodity to be used to gain or maintain favor with particular analysts or investors. As noted in the Proposing Release, in the absence of a prohibition on selective disclosure, analysts may feel pressured to report favorably about a company or otherwise slant their analysis in order to have continued access to selectively disclosed information. We are concerned, in this regard, with reports that analysts who publish negative views of an issuer are sometimes excluded by that issuer from calls and meetings to which other analysts are invited.8

     

    Finally, as we also observed in the Proposing Release, technological developments have made it much easier for issuers to disseminate information broadly. Whereas issuers once may have had to rely on analysts to serve as information intermediaries, issuers now can use a variety of methods to communicate directly with the market. In addition to press releases, these methods include, among others, Internet webcasting and teleconferencing. Accordingly, technological limitations no longer provide an excuse for abiding the threats to market integrity that selective disclosure represents.

     

    To address the problem of selective disclosure, we proposed Regulation FD. It targets the practice by establishing new requirements for full and fair disclosure by public companies.

     

    1. Breadth of Comment on the Proposal

     

    The Proposing Release prompted an outpouring of public comment -- nearly 6,000 comment letters.9 The vast majority of these commenters consisted of individual investors, who urged -- almost uniformly -- that we adopt Regulation FD. Individual investors expressed frustration with the practice of selective disclosure, believing that it places them at a severe disadvantage in the market. Several cited personal experiences in which they believed they had been disadvantaged by the practice.10 Many felt that selective disclosure was indistinguishable from insider trading in its effect on the market and investors, and expressed surprise that existing law did not already prohibit this practice.

     

    Other comments suggested that today's self-directed, online investors do not expect to rely exclusively on research and analysis performed by professionals, as was more common in the past. With advances in information technology, most notably the Internet, information can be communicated to shareholders directly and in real time, without the intervention of an intermediary. This online revolution has created a greater demand, expectation, and need for direct delivery of market information. As many individual commenters noted, under this paradigm, analysts still provide value for investors by using their education, judgment, and expertise to analyze information. On the other hand, investors are rightly concerned with the use of information gatekeepers who merely repeat information that has been selectively disclosed to them.

     

    Noting that analysts predominantly issue "buy" recommendations on covered issuers, investors also made the point that current selective disclosure practices may create conflicts of interest; analysts have an incentive not to make negative statements about an issuer if they fear losing their access to selectively disclosed information. Thus, these commenters suggested that a rule against selective disclosure could lead to more objective and accurate analysis and recommendations from securities analysts.

     

    We also received numerous comments from securities industry participants, issuers, lawyers, media representatives, and professional and trade associations. Almost all of these commenters agreed that selective disclosure of material nonpublic information was inappropriate and supported our goals of promoting broader and fairer disclosure by issuers. Some of these commenters believed the proposal was a generally appropriate way to address the problem of selective disclosure. Many others, however, expressed concerns about the approach of Regulation FD and suggested alternate methods for achieving our goals or recommended various changes to the proposal.

     

    2. Need for Regulation

     

    One fundamental issue raised by these commenters was whether Regulation FD is necessary. Some commenters stated that there is limited anecdotal evidence of selective disclosure. Others suggested that it appears that issuer disclosure practices are generally improving, so that we should refrain from rulemaking at this time, and instead permit practices to evolve and encourage voluntary adherence to "best practices" of disclosure. We do not agree with these views.

     

    It is, of course, difficult to quantify precisely the amount of selective disclosure -- just as it is difficult to quantify precisely the amount of ordinary insider trading. Incidents of selective disclosure, like insider trading, by definition are not conducted openly and in public view. Nevertheless, we have noted numerous media reports in the past two years alleging selective, exclusionary disclosure practices.11 More generally, surveys of practices of issuer personnel indicate significant acknowledgement of the use of selective disclosure of material information.12 Based on these public reports, as well as our staff's experience, it is clear to us that the problem of selective disclosure is not limited, as some commenters have suggested, to just a few isolated incidents.

     

    Some commenters cited a February 2000 NIRI survey suggesting an improvement in issuer disclosure practices, in that most issuers responding to the survey now are opening certain of their conference calls to individual investors.13 To the extent this demonstrates voluntary improvement in response to our efforts to focus attention on the problem,14 we believe this is a positive development. However, these voluntary steps, while laudable, have been far from fully effective. We note, for example, that all of the public reports of selective disclosure cited above occurred after the Commission had begun to focus public attention on issuer selective disclosure. Some occurred even after we proposed Regulation FD. This suggests that the problematic practices targeted by Regulation FD are continuing to occur. Finally, the overwhelming support from investors for Regulation FD demonstrates a strong perception among the investing public that selective disclosure is a significant problem, and shows a corresponding need to prohibit this practice in order to bolster investor confidence in the fairness of the disclosure process.

     

    Some commenters contended that rulemaking on this topic was an inappropriately broad response to the issue.15 They suggested instead that we use existing tools (namely, the law of insider trading) to bring individual enforcement actions in those cases that appear to involve significant selective disclosures. While we have considered this approach -- and of course we remain free to bring such cases where a selective disclosure does violate insider trading laws -- we do not agree that this is the appropriate response to the legal uncertainties posed by current insider trading law. In other contexts, we have been criticized for attempting to "make new law" in an uncertain area by means of enforcement action and urged instead to seek to change the law through notice-and-comment rulemaking. We believe that this rulemaking is the more careful and considered response to the problem presented by selective disclosure.16

     

    3. Effect of Regulation FD on Issuer Communications

     

    One frequently expressed concern was that Regulation FD would not lead to broader dissemination of information, but would in fact have a "chilling effect" on the disclosure of information by issuers.17 In the view of these commenters, issuers would find it so difficult to determine when a disclosure of information would be "material" (and therefore subject to the regulation) that, rather than face potential liability and other consequences of violating Regulation FD, they would cease informal communications with the outside world altogether.18 Some of these commenters therefore recommended that the Commission not adopt any mandatory rule prohibiting selective disclosure, like Regulation FD, but instead pursue voluntary means of addressing the problem, such as interpretive guidance, or the promotion of a "blue ribbon" panel to develop best practices for issuer disclosure. Other commenters recommended various ways that Regulation FD could be made narrower or more well-defined, in order to ameliorate some of the concerns about chilling. Other commenters, however, took issue with the supposition that issuer disclosures would be chilled. As some commenters stated, the marketplace simply would not allow issuers to cease communications with analysts and security holders.19

     

    We have considered these views carefully. As discussed in the Proposing Release, we are mindful of the concerns about chilling issuer disclosure; we agree that the market is best served by more, not less, disclosure of information by issuers. Because any potential "chill" is most likely to arise -- if at all -- from the fear of legal liability, we included in proposed Regulation FD significant safeguards against inappropriate liability. Most notably, we stated that the regulation would not provide a basis for private liability, and provided that in Commission enforcement actions under Regulation FD we would need to prove knowing or reckless conduct.

     

    Later on they went on to state:
    Fourth, we have made clear that where the regulation speaks of "knowing or reckless" conduct, liability will arise only when an issuer's personnel knows or is reckless in not knowing that the information selectively disclosed is both material and nonpublic. This will provide additional assurance that issuers will not be second-guessed on close materiality judgments. Neither will we, nor could we, bring enforcement actions under Regulation FD for mistaken materiality determinations that were not reckless.

     

    Any informed individual would look at this situation and agree that the contact information was neither material nor nonpublic. This relationship is consistent with the company's earlier statements, therefore not "nonpublic". Also any suggestion that contact information for an individual working for a customer is "material" to the company's financial statements is ludicrous. It's not even clear that the revenue from this customer is significant enough to reach the level of materiality, not that it would matter in this case.

     

    The suggestion that it does in your letter speaks volumes about your competence as a securities attorney.

     

    www.sec.gov/rules/fina... or if it's easier for you:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

     

    25 Feb 2011, 12:47 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Tell us why the customer information is not material? What's your definition of "materiality"?

     

    Here's what SEC says about materiality:
    www.sec.gov/rules/fina...
    The final regulation, like the proposal, applies to disclosures of "material nonpublic" information about the issuer or its securities. The regulation does not define the terms "material" and "nonpublic," but relies on existing definitions of these terms established in the case law. Information is material if "there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable shareholder would consider it important" in making an investment decision. To fulfill the materiality requirement, there must be a substantial likelihood that a fact "would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available." Information is nonpublic if it has not been disseminated in a manner making it available to investors generally.
    ------------------

     

    Sorry, but a reasonable investor would not say that customer information is not important in the case of CCME. It may be unimportant for another company, but not CCME.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:45 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Pasting a copy of my message or the link I provided doesn't help readers much does it? How about any reference in case law that shows a company duty to release private contact information to the general public for a customer accounting for less than 10% of revenues as you stated above. There must be many if as BEA suggests there are millions of fraud cases exposed. I just need one.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:19 PM Reply Like
  • singletrackrider
    , contributor
    Comments (42) | Send Message
     
    Marty, It wasn't just one company's contact information. It was 16 was it not?
    25 Feb 2011, 02:43 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    What do you mean, private contact information. No one is asking for private contact information, they are asking for business contact information that is not considered private by anyone, except perhaps you. We are talking about business addresses, business phone numbers, and the person's position at the company.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:07 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, and marty thinks that a business's contact information is private, personal information.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Lol you are too transparent. You say you want business contact information but then want the person's position at the company. The business contact information will be a general number that will be answered by a receptionist and will do nothing for you. An individual in a position to know advertising placement business is not authorized nor paide be company to discuss same with outside world and as such that information is not readily available. Privacy is important to the invidual to protect them from the likes of you who would gladly sacrifice their job by harassing them endlessly trying to get some information which you would then misrepresent to your personal benefit. That's why it's private. IT's also why no case law has been posted by your or the author to show that this type information is material. Keep saying you don't understand. Seems to be the tactic du jour,.
    25 Feb 2011, 04:06 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    You clearly know nothing about investigating. With the identify of hte company, it address and phone number, I could find out a lot of information. What would you do, call and have the receptionist answer and then hang up. Come one, can you get more silly.
    the advertising placement is about as public as knowledge can be, the ads are placed so the public can see it.
    The companies that provide advertising services is not private information. Anyway can find it with a modicum of research. Look on the internet and you can pull up most of the chinese advertising firms within a few minutes. Look at the names Muddy Waters obtained with a little work.
    I don't really care whether it is considered material or not. My point is that no one can claim CCME is legitimate without verifying their sales and customers. You haven't done that, so you don't know whether they are legitimate or not. But, no matter, you still pump this company. I have done the work to be able to conclude that the company is a fraud. Others have as well.
    You have not done the work to conclude the company is legitimate. It is that simple.
    25 Feb 2011, 04:26 PM Reply Like
  • Marty Chilberg
    , contributor
    Comments (579) | Send Message
     
    Sorry did you lose your place? We are not discussing an investigative procedure. This article and my comments thereon is all about whether the company has an obligation or duty under the accounting or SEC regulations, or even under case law to disclose a customer's contact information that has already been conceded by the author to be something less than a major customer requiring disclosure. If you want to discuss your "investigation procedures" please feel free to do so. I'm sure someone will be interested
    25 Feb 2011, 05:05 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    No, I didn't lose my place, did you lose your place? You posted that basically, what good is it to have the company's phone number, as just a reception will answer. I responded with just one of the many reasons it can be valuable to have the company's phone number. Seems obvious to me, but it appeard that you needed someone to spell it out for you.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:58 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    You are being very disingenuous, Marty. You know that we are not talking about a single customer, who accounts for less than 10% of revenue. They are 16 alleged customers, who allegedly account for 50% of revenue. You pumpers have been frantically jumping up and down, since the GH report was released claiming it vindicates CCME, but here you pretend there was nothing material in the report. It's just old recycled information. Uh, huh.

     

    Have it your way, Marty. Suck in a few new bagholders, with your glib cover-ups. In the grand scheme of things, a violation of Reg FD is a nit. It's the grand fraud that will do you in. The SEC is on it, Marty. Your days as a Chicom reverse merger scam guru are numbered. You should ask Sean/Jason shillboys, to tell you who their attorneys are, if you can find them.
    26 Feb 2011, 11:09 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I don't think Marty has any idea what "material" information is, except for if this fraudulent company hasn't disclosed it, it must not be material.
    Obvioiusly, the whole point of the GH report was to supposedly verify the company, which would be of great value to the shareholders, who are owners of the company, if anyone forgot. Therefore, the documents and other material and information they relied on are very material.
    But, hey, why should the owners of the company (the shareholders) be entitled to that.
    26 Feb 2011, 01:42 PM Reply Like
  • Logan Hanson
    , contributor
    Comments (35) | Send Message
     
    Materially has a very specific meaning in accounting. Customer contacts would not be considered material because whether someone in the organization say they are a customer or not has no bearing on the legal relationship. In fact, when you are on an audit, you would likely never contact a customer directly (other than AR confirmations and other substantive procedures) to find out if they are really a customer. The fact that GH actually did that was above and beyond the call.

     

    The reason that Marty posted the Reg FD is to show that it was designed to prevent the early earnings warning/tipping that used to be pretty common in the industry. It wouldn't have anything to do with verifying customer contacts, old cash balances, etc that GH did in regards to CCME.

     

    I wouldn't expect CCME to publically disclose its customer contacts, and nor would I want to. It is a competitive environment and this thing has also done enough damage (so much so that I am only short term long with CCME) with their business relationships.

     

    If I was a customer and CCME wanted to release my information, I would say no, because I wouldn't want to get bombarded by investor calls to find out if I was actually real or not. A friend of mine works with Apple Corporate, he hadn't even heard of Eading Group, even though he is in a position that he definitely could know about something like that, he shrugged it off with a comment like "it is a big company, who knows, we would probably have sued them if they weren't".

     

    The idea that CCME would show ads for free when they could sell lesser ads for actual cash doesn't make sense. They have an audience, why not charge money for the ads? The company has been around for seven years, I doubt they were sitting around at the beginning saying "hey, let's create a fake company so we can eventually go public in America at 2009 in order to defraud some investors."

     

    Reader10Q: Suggestion, give Jacky the contact information of your friend (after clearing it with him/her first), Jacky will likely put them in contact with the right person at l'oreal to verify that they actually have a contract, than your friend can report back to you.

     

    I think that is both fair and equitable.
    27 Feb 2011, 04:14 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Yeah, no one can figure out who the advertising agencies are - NOT - you can get a list of them in a few minutes on the internet. Of course, as you point out, the auditing firms don't do a lot that they would need to do to show the company is not a fraud. However, just because an audit firm doesn't get certain information does not mean that it is not material - what an auditor decides to do is a different matter than what is material.
    Global Hunter did virtually nothing, in my opinion. Basically, they looked at documents that CCME provided them and they talked to people CCME told them to. To uncover the fraud, you would need to do the work that Muddy Waters did, checking with independent, 3rd parties and documents, instead of only the people and documents CCME present. When you do that, the fraud becomes very obvious and apparent.
    Of course, any investor in CCME would want to verify the sales and customers. It is very bizzare that these posts argue why one shouldn't want or try to get such information, instead of trying to figure out ways to get such information. The obvious reason is because these posters know the information doesn't exist and want to continue pumping this pump and dump fraud.
    27 Feb 2011, 04:36 PM Reply Like
  • phinance101
    , contributor
    Comments (475) | Send Message
     
    Logan,

     

    You are dim. It is not an accounting issue. Reg FD is not an accounting rule. It is about disclosure of information that "would have been viewed by the reasonable investor as having significantly altered the 'total mix' of information made available."

     

    In this context, there was a public allegation made that CCME has imaginary customers, and the stock had tanked. Information that countered those allegations is obviously material. The specific information that was disclosed to GH, has not been publicly disseminated. Even the GH clowns have only talked about it in code. This is a clear violation of the SEC Reg FD, period. Of course, compared with the fraud, the Reg FD violation is a nit. So you are right not to worry about it.
    27 Feb 2011, 05:30 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    What I find really funny is that you don't post your identity but you criticize the author for not posting his.
    You don't expect the company to provide the identity and contact information of its customers, but you expect the author to provide his.
    The applicable term, I believe, is 'hypocritical'.
    25 Feb 2011, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • wctbills
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    What the heck is going on here? Is seahorse/BEA still bitter about me taking his money? ;)
    25 Feb 2011, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • wctbills
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    My video is of a L'oreal ad being shown in a CCME embedded ad. CCME gets paid for embedded ads by the ad agency.

     

    I called my marketing friend at L'Oreal Shanghai. She's also unaware that they advertise on long-distance buses. But she's not expected to know, bcz they farm it out to ad agencies. That's what she said.

     

    Hey seahorse/BEA, I think I have a few hundred dollar bills with your name on it. Hehe... but it's mine now. =)
    25 Feb 2011, 01:58 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Hehehehehe, you showed CCME doing their own advertisement in which they show a L'Oreal ad. That is funny.
    How would L'Oreal not know where an advertising agency is putting their ads? Does the advertising agency also make up what L'Oreal ads would be placed on the DVD's or tapes? Do you think any large company is not going to want to work directly with CCME on the DVDs or tapes, see what is on the tapes, etc? Please, this is going far beyond silliness, I can see the 5th grade class busting up and laughing themselves to tears on this silly story.

     

    wctbils - are you the one I sold those out of the money calls to when CCME was over $20.00? ouch, they sure dropped in value fast, didn't they?
    25 Feb 2011, 02:07 PM Reply Like
  • wctbills
    , contributor
    Comments (10) | Send Message
     
    Haha... no, you're the one who shorted the shares to me at $8.11.

     

    Lalala... I spent your $$$ seahorse.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:37 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I think you are living in a fantasy world. Why don't you go shoot some more videos of CCME making an advertisement about their company that contains an advertisement from another company and claim that proves that other company is advertising with CCME.
    I would say that you are easily duped, but the real answer appears much more sinister, doesn't it.
    While I have done well with my position in CCME, that is not really what matters to me. My point is that CCME is clearly a fraud. It doesn't matter how much the stock gets pumped up or how much it goes down (although it will disappear eventually), the company is clearly a fraud.
    25 Feb 2011, 04:29 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Clearly a fraud? Huh? What? Where?

     

    Please provide five items that clearly show CCME is a fraud. Five concrete items - not accusations that are four times removed and unverifiable.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Just read the Muddy Water's report. It does a much better job than i can in this small space.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:59 PM Reply Like
  • User 35951
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
     
    Of course it does! Should we ever expect a different response from you Seasaw? Idiot
    25 Feb 2011, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Well, perhaps you should just read it and follow up on it and you would figure it out. Again, with the projecting comments, describing others with words that describe yourself, not them.
    25 Feb 2011, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I've read it and if that is what you are basing your opinions on, I can only pity you.

     

    I posted a detailed response to MW in a separate comment of this article. Please read it and see how logical thinking rebuts flawed conclusions.
    25 Feb 2011, 10:13 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    I recommend you read it again with your thinking cap on.
    I've read your response to muddy waters. It abandoned all logic and truth. May I suggest a good logical thinking class for you? How about a good course on investigating?
    26 Feb 2011, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    You make me laugh.

     

    :-)
    26 Feb 2011, 12:37 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    BEA, Please respond to my simple request .....

     

    "Please provide five items that clearly show CCME is a fraud. Five concrete items - not accusations that are four times removed and unverifiable."
    26 Feb 2011, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Read the reports.
    26 Feb 2011, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Business Economics Analyst,

     

    your real name must be Carson Block, the crook that belongs to jail for the next 150 years.
    27 Feb 2011, 09:44 AM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Because he exposed the frauds at ONP, RINO, and CCME?
    27 Feb 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Business Economics Analyst,

     

    Carson Block belongs to jail for the next 150 years because Carson Block defamed ONP and CCME intentionally and enriched himself (or rather youself?) massively from his (your) bullshit hit piece and short selling on the expense of other not well informed private investors, most of them can not read, write or hear Chinese and are indeed very easy to be manipulated. I already complained about Carson Blocks price manipulation to SEC. But SEC is slow to react.

     

    RINO is a pure luck to be found as a fraud by Carson Block! Carson Block is comparable to a man who goes to disco every evening and asks every woman he sees to have sex with him. He will succeed one day, but you nontheless can not call him a highly skilled pickup artist or a skilled research analyst.

     

    As I already told you that ccme will not be a fraud just because you say so billions of times! I will not sell my massive holding in ccme but continue buying until the price to earnings ratio has reached 10 or the share price has reached 26 $. I do not care about the high short interest in ccme. The higher it is, the lower the price and the lower I can increase my stake in it! I bet you can not write, read or hear Chinese. If you can, just write something in Chinese to show me your literacy in Chinese, but do not use google translator to cheat me. It is very simple to dicipher whether the text is written in Chinese by a literate person or simply translated by a dull google translator.
    27 Feb 2011, 02:16 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    The simple response is that you couldn't be farther wrong. It is ONP, CCME and Rino that are frauds. Only a simple buffoon woult not know have figured this to be true after all the evidence. However, I suspect that are you are not a simple buffoon, fooled by the fraud, but that your motives are more sinister in pumping this fraud.
    i have no basis to believe that you are buying any stock in CCME. Your actions are similar to those in pump and dump scams trying to pump the stock so you can dump it.
    Carson Block speaks, reads and writes Chinese but you slander him at every turn, so what difference would it make whether i am literate in Chinese or not. You might be unaware, but many people have successfully done business in other countries, both figuring out good buys, avoiding bad ones, and spotting frauds, without being literate in the language of the company.
    When you get above a very low level of thinking, you realize that you can hire very good translators for just about every language on the planet. Have you heard of translators, or need I explain?
    Have you heard of people doing very well in business in countries where they are not literate in the language, including by the way in China? Or do you need me to provide a list - it is in the many thousands, if not millions, by the way?
    Do you have some legitimate point to make or another flawed one, such as I must not know what I am talking about if I am not literate in the language? I can't figure out why you desparately flounder around making such fallacious arguments, except, of course, for hte obvious reason, you have no sound arguments to make.
    27 Feb 2011, 02:30 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    BEA,

     

    you say that Carson Block speaks, reads and writes Chinese.

     

    Please tell me how you can verify that he speaks, reads and writes Chinese, if you youself can not speak, read and write Chinese.
    27 Feb 2011, 03:12 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    BEA,

     

    By the way, I even have no problem to publish my banking information about how many shares I own in ccme, 35446 pieces to be exact, but there is no use, because it is a German account and you surely can not read German either.
    27 Feb 2011, 03:15 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    come one, guy, that is an incredibly silly question. why are you wasting time with a nonsense question like that?
    If you doubt it, why don't you look into it?
    The truth is the truth. You try to make an argumentation about the truth, like that will change it.
    27 Feb 2011, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    You still haven't figured out what a translator is?
    27 Feb 2011, 03:27 PM Reply Like
  • UpstateChris
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Reader10Q, "Your duty is fight fraud".

     

    Fair enough! I completely agree! That is a noble fight. In the tradition of ancient Asian warriors, now that we have absolutely undeniable proof that you are in fact yourself a fraud, when can we expect news that you have taken your own life?

     

    Wait...what's that I see? Why yes! Its a video of a L'Orreal ad running on a CCME monitor on a Chinese bus!

     

    So "your friend" told you all about this? My guess is you have no friends - and after following idiots like Citron and Muddy Waters you also no longer have any money.
    25 Feb 2011, 02:32 PM Reply Like
  • The Skeptical Investor
    , contributor
    Comments (65) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » That's a CCME ad listing the names of their purported customers. It wasn't a L'Oreal ad.

     

    As I said, if the company would provide signed statements from customers showing the volume of business that they did with CCME, that very easily address all these questions.
    25 Feb 2011, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • UpstateChris
    , contributor
    Comments (9) | Send Message
     
    Hey - I just called the regional Microsoft office in my area and threatened that if they didnt tell me exactly how much money they spent advertising in Sports Illustrated that I would post their denial (and therefore the obvious fact that they are a fraud) online. I know this is completely legal because my good friend Reader10Q, an attorney, set that example for me. Well, they wouldn't tell me! Imagine that! They must be a fraud! They have the legal obligation to take time and manpower and answer each and every single question and allegation they get from anyone, no matter who it is or what their intentions. In fact, disclosure of that information legally trumps any non disclosure agreements they have in place. Im so glad my new best friend and lawyer, Reader10Q, taught me all this neat stuff. Now I have no doubt that Microsoft doesn't really even exist - THEY ARE A SHELL! IT IS FRAUD! A SCAM!
    25 Feb 2011, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    What was not hard was for you to verify that Microsoft was advertising in Sports Illustrated, was it?
    25 Feb 2011, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • rru2s
    , contributor
    Comments (304) | Send Message
     
    and what was hard for YOU to verify that L'Orreal waas on that video monitor in the video posted by WCTBills? Oh, I guess you have "selective clicking"...I suggest you learn to selecitively click on your online broker to cover your shorts before you lose even more, sir.
    25 Feb 2011, 03:42 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    And we have seen ads from L'Oreal, Nike, etc on CCME buses.

     

    Do we have PROOF that L'Oreal paid money to CCME? Well, do we have proof that Microsoft paid Sports Illustrated?

     

    I think you are running out of straws to grasp.
    25 Feb 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    It appears that you are very easy to dupe and want to continue to be so, unless there is a more sinister explanation. I am trying to explain this things really simply but you don't seem to be getting it. In answer to your question, it would be very easy for me to verify that Microsoft paid Sports Illustrated. I really don't want to argue about such simple obviouis things. If you can't figure out how to confirm such things, maybe a basic course in doing an investigation would be helpful for you.
    25 Feb 2011, 08:02 PM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    Ok my friend.

     

    1) please confirm for me that Microsoft paid Sports Illustrated.

     

    2) please confirm for me that L'Oreal did NOT pay CCME.

     

    I'm not as capable as you, but since it is so easy, I eagerly await both these confirmations. Thanks!!
    25 Feb 2011, 10:17 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Rex:

     

    My fees are well beyond what you could ever afford so you are going to have to do your own wetwork around here homey. If you can't do the very simple, basic work it takes to confirm Microsoft paid Sports Illustrated or can't confirm that L'Oreal did not pay CCME, then I am not sure why you are posting opinions around here about CCME being legitimate. You admittedly lack the skills to make such a determination.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:10 AM Reply Like
  • rex_remes
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    You're the one who said it was easy to confirm. So, if you want people to believe you, why don't you 'put your money where your mouth is'?

     

    I want to believe you. Please give me proof. Please.
    26 Feb 2011, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Why don't you do some work? Are you saying it is not easy for you?
    26 Feb 2011, 01:43 PM Reply Like
  • gunnar
    , contributor
    Comments (63) | Send Message
     
    Ha, BEA is so ridiculous, spinning around his own lies.
    26 Feb 2011, 03:32 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    Again, projecting, your post describes yourself to a T.
    26 Feb 2011, 09:32 PM Reply Like
  • wyf
    , contributor
    Comments (92) | Send Message
     
    Hello your shorts,

     

    as shown from the trading price from 17.02.2011 to 25.02.11, the price of ccme stays between 14,11 to 14,40. Do you really believe that your badmouthing about ccme will reduce its price? People now owning ccme shares are investors who did broad independent DD and reasoning. You shorts will not scare them out of their shares in ccme! I own a huge portion in ccme and I continue buying ccme shares, as long as its price to earnings ratio is under 10 or its share price is under 26. Your defamation of ccme will not have any effect on my buying behaviour toward ccme.

     

    Feb 24, 2011 14.12 14.47 14.12 14.40 758,900 14.40
    Feb 23, 2011 14.11 14.30 13.74 14.25 1,491,000 14.25
    Feb 22, 2011 14.03 14.67 14.00 14.11 2,076,700 14.11
    Feb 18, 2011 14.65 14.83 13.92 14.42 3,748,300 14.42
    Feb 17, 2011 14.14 15.21 13.66 14.26 9,084,000 14.26
    Feb 16, 2011 13.10 13.10 12.25 12.65 1,435,500 12.65
    Feb 15, 2011 12.80 13.43 12.35 12.70 2,316,900 12.70
    Feb 14, 2011 12.20 12.90 12.16 12.80 1,708,800 12.80
    Feb 11, 2011 13.32 13.41 11.40 11.92 4,225,600 11.92
    25 Feb 2011, 04:01 PM Reply Like
  • gokou3
    , contributor
    Comments (104) | Send Message
     
    Reader10Q,

     

    Why don't you give us the business contact info of your L'Oreal friend here so we can contact her independently to verify your claims. I am sure the longs here would love to find out the truth.
    25 Feb 2011, 04:19 PM Reply Like
  • s150
    , contributor
    Comments (3) | Send Message
     
    Why would a CFO give the name of a valued client to a short seller? It defies logic. I myself only rarely give out my customer names - and then, only to people I trust (otherwise you would quickly find you have no customers). No customer wants the contact, publicity, or in the case of shorts, harassment.
    The following points have been noted several times, but it's worth repeating:

     

    1) You pose as an 'investor' to the CFO, but you are in fact a short. That is deceit, and it's that type of behavior that forces CCME to not trust anyone in this debate – and certainly not you.

     

    2) You then threaten the CFO, and expect the CFO to respond with contact info. You must be joking, or incredibly stupid. Nobody, not me, not the CFO, nor any professional person on the planet would ever respond to a threat by giving up a personal business contact. Why should he - so you could threaten somebody the CFO trusts and who trusts the CFO? Your logic is so incredibly dense, that it hurts that you think you should be taken seriously.

     

    3) It is especially hypocritical that you refuse to reveal the name of your L'Oreal friend to the CFO, yet feel empowered to disparage the CFO for not revealing valuable business contacts. What? Again, are you joking, or stupid? Why not let the CFO talk to your friend? You could then call the friend back, and find out if the CFO sorted things out, or if he is in fact a fraud. So, your friend is either not real, or you actually don't want to know the truth. Which is it? You have nothing to lose, and everybody who is reading your post knows that - so you lose all credibility.

     

    I might actually believe the CCME shorts if they could make at least one professional point. But, they come across as these really slimy people who profit by taking advantage of honest people.
    25 Feb 2011, 08:55 PM Reply Like
  • Business Economics Analyst
    , contributor
    Comments (2532) | Send Message
     
    again, with the projection, actually describing yourself, not the people you claim to be talking about, to quote "But, they come across as these really slimy people who profit by taking advantage of honest people."
    As i predicted, a million reasons why one should not want to verify CCME's legitimacy by doing due diligence on their sales and customers. That is the currency of fraudsters - suspend your own due diligence and judgment, but instead just accept what we are telling you.
    Despite the way you write the post, you don't appear quite the model you put yourself out there to be.
    25 Feb 2011, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Nonsense blogger
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Homey, please tell us what you verified thus far. Where is your due diligence? Copy and past does not count.
    26 Feb 2011, 11:17 AM Reply Like