Seeking Alpha

OldCFO's  Instablog

Send Message
I have been investing in stocks for over 32 years. I’m a CFP, licensed since 1988. I was a CFO/Financial principal (series 7, 24 and 27) of a retail brokerage firm, at one time a R.I.A. (Registered Investment Advisor), and worked as a Sr. Financial Analyst for TransAmerica prior to its... More
  • Advanced Battery Technology, A Real Company Battle Against an Incredulous Anonymous Short 2 comments
    Apr 29, 2011 11:59 AM
    This is a revised article I wrote in response to SA editor’s denial of posting this article for distribution to the similar websites as Variant View Research. I removed contents disputing VVR non-compliance to SA’s policies. The editors at SA again rejected the article stating that this is not the forum to dispute violation of the SA policies.  I wrote back on Monday requesting SA to specifically show where I claim VVR was violating its policies. To date there has been no response.   Here is the text from SA’s denial letter.   I would appreciate any of you reviewing this letter to see where the article contains language that VVR was in violation of the policies with SA.
    “Thank you for submitting an article to Seeking Alpha.
    We have declined to publish your submission for the reason(s) listed below:
    ·         This article is not publishable in its current form. An article is not the venue to dispute SA policy vis-a-vis anonymous contributors, which VVR has not circumvented and is not - to the best of our knowledge - in violation of. If you want to stick to your dispute of VVR's actual arguments, we are more than willing to publish your article and give it equal exposure. (Please note that we generally look for 3-5 suitable articles before publishing a first submission. As such you mail email 2-3 writing samples that match our criteria for publication upon revision and resubmission). If you believe that there are factual inaccuracies in VVR's articles, you are welcome - independently or together with publishing an article - to launch a dispute.”
    Advanced Battery Technology, A Real Company Battle Against an Incredulous Anonymous Short
    When an individual posts an article anonymously you have no idea whether they are they connected to other writers.   Sometimes it appears these short writers have planned a coordinated attack to drive the price of a stock down to zero.  Unfortunately it feeds to more legitimate financial news publications adding credibility to the article leading to a further deterioration in the company’s stock.    All this occurs despite no vetting of the source or whether that individual(s) who wrote the article have a criminal background.
    I have no reason to hide or write an anonymous article. I have a long position in ABAT and recently acquired another small position in ABAT. I have been a CFP® for 23 years and investor in stocks for over 32 years.  These are the facts that you must consider about Variant View Research before you make any decision to buy or sell ABAT stock:
    1. Variant View Research published an article on Seeking Alpha that caused over a 40% drop in ABAT stock. The article was published by a short strictly for financial gain.
    2. Variant View Research is one of many ‘Research Firms’ who has exploited the Seeking Alpha name to have their articles posted as ‘news’ or ‘headlines’ on many reputable financial websites.
    3. Variant View Research has not been vetted by anyone including Seeking Alpha.
    4. Variant View Research is not a legitimate investment research company.
    5. Variant View Research is published by an unknown writer who has profited immensely (along with his cohorts) from his ‘alleged’ research done strictly for financial gain.
    6. Variant View Research, despite numerous requests, failed to disclose who they are.  
    7. Variant View Research used verbiage by a plaintiff in a lawsuit against ABAT to support its short position.
    8. Variant View Research needs to be further investigated and prosecuted by the S.E.C. if the information provided on Seeking Alpha website can’t be substantiated and claims made are fraudulent.   
                    On March 30, 2010 Seeking Alpha released an article to numerous popular financial websites including, but not limited to, Yahoo! Finance, Barron's Online, MSN and Google Finance that caused a collapse in Advanced Battery Technology stock. 
    ‘Advanced Battery Technology Dives 43%+ On SeekingAlpha Article (OTCPK:ABAT) Advanced Battery Technology (NASDAQ: ABAT) dives sharply in intraday trading - over -43% from yesterday's close at one point- after a negative SeekingAlpha article noted problems with the company’.
    The drop in ABAT stock and the reason behind it went viral to numerous other business websites thus lending additional creditability to views of Variant View Research.  
    Vetting this Short
    We are now in an environment for Chinese stocks where it’s first create an illusion that the company is corrupt, abandon the stock at any price and ask questions later. In the meantime the illusionist and his cohorts have substantial profits, while those who were victims to these untruths are now reliant on Dewey, Cheatem and Howe to recover lost $$$$$’s from Advanced Battery Technology. There is something wrong with this picture.
     Having over 32 years investment experience and a solid professional finance background, I have read Variant View Research claims and consider them nothing more than a distortion of material facts, innuendoes and egregious statements designed to destroy all equity in the stock of ABAT for financial gain.   Opinions expressed by Variant View Research illustrated discrepancies in financial filings despite the ‘research firm’ not having direct access to the company’s books and seeing how ABAT’s final accounting entry was arrived at.    
     Once you have reviewed Seeking Alpha ‘Terms of Agreement’ and ‘Disclosures’ you will see that Seeking Alpha does no vetting of the information in articles posted or its source.   Basically Seeking Alpha articles are equivalent in a lot of ways to a Yahoo Message Board posts. The difference being Seeking Alpha has agreements with numerous major financial websites to post Seeking Alpha articles as ‘News’ or ‘Headlines’.   This gives the article writer instant creditability as what is written is viewed as ‘news’ despite no vetting of the content or source.  
    Originally I started going through Variant View Research claims 1 by 1 noting obvious distortions of the truth made solely for the gain of the acknowledged individual(s) shorting the stock.   Prior to concluding my research, Advanced Battery Technologies posted their reply. 
                     Variant View Research then came out with commentary on ABAT’s rebuttal.   After that, I came to the conclusion that instead of rebutting the remainder of Variant View Research claims,  a more prudent defense is to show the ‘research firm’ is not a legitimate ‘research firm’, has not been vetted and potentially has violated S.E.C. laws.  
    Who Is Variant View Research?
     It is Seeking Alpha policy to not post articles from research firms. I suggest all of you read the ‘terms of agreement’ on the Seeking Alpha site to understand the content they allow on their website.   After you review these terms you will understand better that the Seeking Alpha site, in some cases, is no better than a compilation of posts on the Yahoo Message Board. You will conclude like I did, there is no vetting of the source. 
    So, if Variant View Research is not a ‘research company’ who are they? Despite numerous requests, the writer refuses to expose him or herself. On the Q & A after two of Variant’s Seeking Alpha articles were disseminated, the poster only responded to people praising or attacking his or her ‘research’.
    Is this person(s) another Barry Minkow? Front running a short position and telling lies to enhance their wealth?
    Does the individual(s) have a history of securities fraud or even worse?
    After reviewing everything I could on ‘Variant View Research’ I could not find anything of substance.   This is the Google result:
    No individual’s name, no educational or professional experience, no address, no phone number…
    Then I checked for a website registrant (.com, .net. .org).
    The results in a nut shell….zilch! There is no such thing as Variant View Research other than a fictitious name used to post ‘research’.
                 My conclusion was Variant View Research wrote and posted this article only to manipulate ABAT stock down for a profit.  
    Has Variant View Research Violated an S.E.C. Law?
    ‘Securities Exchange Act of 1934 under Rule 10b-5 -- Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Devices’ as ‘it shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails or of any facility of any national securities exchange,
    a.      To employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
    b.      To make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or
    c.       To engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person,
    In connection with the purchase or sale of any security’.
    If Variant View Research or any other individual had a legitimate complaint, they would have filed it with the S.E.C. and taken a short position. Instead Variant View Research yelled ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater. Variant View Research posted this article only to manipulate ABAT stock down for a profit with a reckless disregard for the truth.  
    The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth
    After the original Variant View Research Article came out I started to review each of the 12 reasons to short and came up with this unaltered opinion on 6 of claims. Keep in mind this was written prior to Advanced Technology posting its reply.   
    Claim:    The Mr. Fu, Chairman of ABAT has not transferred capital stock ownership to himself of ABAT’s key subsidiary.
     ‘HLJ ZQPT is owned by our Chairman, Mr. Fu and other individuals but controlled by Harbin ZQPT through a series of contractual arrangements that transferred all of the benefits and all of the responsibilities for the operations of HLJ ZQPT to Harbin ZQPT.’             
                            Truth-The ‘Researcher’ omitted the full text and purposely distorted what actually occurred. I highlighted what was omitted.   Here is the quotation in its entirety directly from the 2009 10-K/A:
    On May 6, 2004, the Company completed a share exchange (the "Exchange") with the shareholders of Cashtech Investment Limited (“Cashtech”), a British Virgin Islands Corporation, who, at the time, owned 70% interest of Harbin Zhong Qiang Power-Tech Co., Ltd. (“ZQPT”or “Harbin ZQPT”), a limited liability company established in the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC”). As result of this share exchange
    transaction, there was change of control in the Company as the shareholders of Cashtech became the majority shareholders of the Company.   The transaction had been accounted for as a reverse acquisition under the purchase method of accounting. Accordingly, Cashtech was treated as the continuing entity for accounting purposes.
    On January 6, 2006, the minority shareholders of ZQPT transferred the remaining 30% of their interests in ZQPT to Cashtech in exchange for 11,780,594 shares of the Company’s Common Stock. As result of this transfer, Cashtech now owns 100% of the capital stock of ZQPT.
    On May 4, 2009, the Company acquired 100% interest of Wuxi Angell Autocycle Co., Ltd. (“Wuxi ZQ”).
    On August 20, 2002, Heilongjiang Zhongqiang Power-Tech Co., Ltd (“HLJ ZQPT”), was incorporated under the laws of the PRC. HLJ ZQPT is owned by our Chairman, Mr. Fu and other individuals but controlled by Harbin ZQPT through a series of contractual arrangements that transferred all of the benefits and all of the responsibilities for the operations of HLJ ZQPT to Harbin ZQPT.   During 2009 HLJ ZQPT also transferred to Harbin ZQPT all of its rights in the real property on which HLJ carries on its operations. The Company is in the process of transferring all of the other assets of HLJ ZQPT to Harbin ZQPT, but has not yet obtained all of the necessary government approvals. Harbin ZQPT accounts for HLJ ZQPT as a Variable Interest Entity (“VIE”) under ASC 810 “Consolidation”. Accordingly, Harbin ZQPT consolidates HLJ ZQPT’s results, assets and liabilities.’
                         What the ‘Research firm’ conveniently omitted was that in January 2006 the remaining 30% of capital stock of Harbin ZQPT was transferred and the other transaction the ‘Research Company’ referred to has to do with ‘real property’ of a separate company (HLJ ZQPT) owned by Mr. Fu and other individuals.
                         Folks no stock changed hands back to Mr. Fu. The ‘Researcher’ created a false corporate structure to substantiate a stock transfer that never happened. 
    Per IRS definition:
    Real property includes the structural components of both buildings and inherently permanent structures, such as walls, partitions, doors, wiring, plumbing, central air conditioning and heating systems, pipes and ducts, elevators and escalators, and other exposure to the region. The fact is that these accounting weaknesses already contribute substantially to stocks in China being valued significantly lower than their U.S. counterparts. It was factored into the price of ABAT prior to the ‘Research’ firm coming out with a ridiculous article.   Additionally Chinese companies recognize this weakness.   From the ABAT 2005 10-K:
    The People's Republic of China has only recently begun to adopt the management and financial reporting concepts and practices that investors in the United States are familiar with. We may have difficulty in hiring and retaining employees in China who have the experience necessary to implement the kind of management and financial controls that are expected of a United States public company. If we cannot establish such
    controls, we may experience difficulty in collecting financial data and preparing financial statements, books of account and corporate records and instituting business practices that meet U.S. standards.’
          other similar property’.
    In other words Harbin ZQPT is using the property it operates from based on agreements with HLJ ZQPT.   Additionally it states that HLJ ZQPT is in the process of transferring all the other assets to Harbin ZQPT. Mr. Fu does need to disclose the terms of the agreement and if any monetary compensation is involved. The 2010 financials do not show any compensation going to Mr. Fu for the transfer of the property. This might be just a paper transaction with no
    funds changing hands. In either case it needs further explanation.
    This is Advanced Battery Technology’s response after I wrote the above:
    ‘In sum, there has been no transfer of ownership of Heilongjian ZQPT, to our Chairman or otherwise. All that occurred was a change in how ABAT characterized the relationship of its filings, and that characterization was entirely proper.’
    Conclusion: It was a paper transaction with no funds changing hands.
    Claim-ABAT misleads its investors in believing that they make cut-edge electric cars.
                  Truth-In reading ABAT financials the Chinese consider an ‘Electric Vehicle’ to include a power scooter, bike or motorcycle. These are still the prime forms of transportation in China as there are 82 residents per one automobile. The company does not mention the word ‘cars’.   
    From the 2010 10-K this is what the subsidiary Wuxi ZQ does:
    ‘Since 2002, Wuxi ZQ has been engaged in the design, development, manufacture and marketing of electric- and hybrid-powered two wheel vehicles, as well as electric-powered agricultural transport vehicles and sport utility e-vehicles. The prices of Wuxi ZQ vehicles range from $427 to $3,471, with an average selling price of $574. Wuxi ZQ markets not only complete vehicles but also components, including motors, electronic controls, meters and plastic parts. Wuxi ZQ has developed a reputation for delivering vehicles that excel in both performance and style. With low noise, easy maintenance and a stable drive, the Wuxi ZQ scooters and e-bicycles are designed to capture the opportunities presented by China’s recent emphasis on reducing air pollution and the degradation of China’s environment that has accompanied its rapid industrialization.
    When I did due diligence on ABAT one of the first things I did was Google ‘Wuxi ZQ’. One more click more brought me to the home page. With 2 clicks I knew this company was similar to Razor USA ( ;The only difference between the two companies is Razor products are for kids, while Wuxi creates transportation vehicles for adults. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out this out. Also the adverse article on ABAT conveniently failed to show what is highlighted above….Wonder why?  
    Claim-ABAT claims unrealistic margins in a business they claim is commodity space.
    Truth-In any 10K you will read a section called ‘Risk Factors’. Within that public companies go to extremes (i.e. in the event of war, political change, etc) only to reduce their liability. Battery plants are high tech operations and require a tremendous capital investment, for the technology and equipment, making it a less competitive business and not a commodity.   Also, manufacturing salaries in China equate to less than $1/hr U.S. Adding to lower costs, the company pays no lease fees on one of the property used from the Republic of China as shown on the 2010 10-K:
    ‘The People’s Republic of China has given ZQ Power-Tech a lease to use the 72,000 square meter campus in Harbin, China where ZQ Power-Tech’s offices and manufacturing facility are located. The campus is 24 km from the nearest airport. The nearest port is Da Lian. The lease expires in September 2043. ZQ Power-Tech is not required to pay any rental for the property as long as it continues to utilize the property for manufacturing. In November 2003 ZQ Power-Tech received ISO9001 certification pertaining to Manufacturing and Quality Control Approval.’
                     Other cost efficiencies not broken out on any of the financials could add to larger margins. But again unless you have direct access to the books it’s impossible to know what exactly those costs are.   Does ABAT report a great profit margin? Yes.   Are their margins unrealistic? This is impossible to say without carefully reviewing accounting records and having the ability to drill down. 
    Claim-ABAT has no special technology as witnessed by R&D expenditures.
    Truth-Again unless you have access to the detailed financial records of the company and have the ability to drill down you can’t go by one line item listed as R&D expenditures and think that those are all the expenses related to R&D.   There are other areas these items can show up in.  
    From one of my accounting publications:
    ‘There are a number of ways to treat R&D Expenses. Some companies do not record a separate line item for research and development expenses. To the extent that they do incur such expenses they are probably lumped into selling, general, and administrative expenses but would be disclosed in a footnote. Companies that are more reliant on research will generally report it separately.   Both International Accounting Standards (IAS) and United States GAAP require research to be expensed as incurred. US GAAP also requires development to be expensed while IAS 9 permits development costs to be capitalized as an asset if certain requirements are met.’
    Claim-Revenue has increased from $4.2 million in 2005 to $97.1 million in 2010 while the numbers of employees have decreased.
    Truth-Believe it or not this is true. But the explanation offered in the article was from the truth.   The Company went from a startup company early in its existence only producing one product to start in 2005 to mass production of batteries and electric vehicles today.   R&D staff count was reduced from 160 in 2005 to 66 in 2010.   In 2005 there were 1,048 production employees with today 985 employees.   On the surface this looks suspicious, however, reviewing the 2005 10-KSB:
    At the present time, ZQ Power-Tech produces only one finished product. This is a miner's lamp equipped with a rechargeable PLI battery that ZQ Power-Tech sells to an agency of the Chinese government. All of ZQ Power-Tech's other sales and pending contracts are for battery cells, which are sold on an OEM basis as a component of a finished product.’ 
    So what happened? Unless you are physically there in the plant and see what was going on you can assume only one of two things. Either the Company is not legit or when you go from a startup company to mass production it’s not a transition that happens over night. Economies of scale happen over time. Reading the 2004 10-KSB it describes how the company production capacity will expand:
    ‘During 2004 ZQ Power-Tech commenced an ongoing program of expanding its production facility. It now has a production capacity of approximately $20,000,000 per year, depending on the specific products being produced. Management intends to increase the production capacity to $40,000,000 per year during 2005. In addition to building additional factories on its campus, ZQ Power-Tech has an ongoing training program for production workers. ZQ Power-Tech expects that during 2005 it will add 840 production workers to its current 360 employees, which will significantly increase ZQ Power-Tech's production capacity’.
    So apparently they added the employees in 2005 in anticipation of expanding plant production capacity. The expansion took awhile to occur. From the 2005 10-KSB:
    ‘In the fall of 2005 we returned to full production, shipping $2,618,165 of product in that quarter, to produce total revenues in 2005 of $4,222,960. Since we currently have a backlog of approximately $6.25 million from approximately twelve customers, we expect to at least maintain the level of operations that we achieved in the 4th quarter of 2005. We do not include in our current backlog the $21 million order placed by Aiyingsi in 2004, since the delivery times for that order have been delayed indefinitely.
    ZQ Power-Tech realized a 33% gross margin on its sales in 2005. Our gross margin ratio in the future will depend considerably upon which of ZQ Power-Tech's products are dominating sales. However we do expect our operations in 2006 and beyond to be more efficient than they have been in the past, as we are implementing advanced production management systems. We are also gaining experience with our new production lines, which is enabling us to improve the efficiency of the lines and to discover lower- cost sources of raw materials for our products.’
                  This shows how the company grew and what they believe would happen in the future…more production…less costs…more revenue per employee.
    This is Advanced Battery Technology’s response after I wrote the above:
     ‘We have also reported massive investment in upgrading our assembly lines to improve their efficiency.’
    Claim-No significant institution has taken a position in this company other than index funds and other irrelevant buyers none who have done their research.
    Truth-Institutional Ownership from MSN Money is currently listed as owning 38.37% of outstanding shares. Among the holders are Vanguard, State Street, USB and Mellon. And as the malicious article claimed, not all these holders have investments in ABAT are index funds and I seriously doubt that 38.37% of stock owned by 71 institutions failed to do any due diligence.
    This is Advanced Battery Technology’s response after I wrote the above:
     ‘During the past three years, ABAT has raised $90 million by selling equity securities to institutions. Within the past two years, Blackrock, Invesco, and SAM Sustainable Asset Management AG have file 13Gs reporting the accumulation of positions in our stock.’
    Claim-ABAT’s RTO promoter, John Leo, is behind a number of suspicious Chinese reverse mergers.
    Truth-John C Leo has no S.E.C. violations or does his current firm, Primary Capital, LLC. In fact, unlike Varient View Research, Mr. Leo has a physical location and telephone number that can be called.
    Primary Capital does participate in offering highly risky investments among other things.   When I was in the brokerage industry ‘Pink Sheet’ and ‘Bulletin Board’ stocks were always one step from going out-of-business. But the bottom line is we know where Mr. Leo is, but where is Variant View Research?   I guess it’s like the song ‘Oh Where Oh Where Has My Little Doggie Gone? Or Where Oh Where Can He Be? I can say the same for Variant View Research.
    Using a Lawsuit to Substantiate Allegations
              Finally the most egregious offense of Variant View Research was the article published on April 6th entitled ‘Is Advanced Battery’s $20M Acquisition a Complete Fabrication?   This ‘research company’ posted allegations directly from the lawsuit claiming:
    ‘We also learned of disturbing allegations by the CEO of the company acquired in 2008. This individual alleges that ABAT’s Chairman threatened his life in retaliation for a lawsuit over $600,000 worth of ABAT shares.’
                     Believe it or not Variant View Research posts the death threat charges on 2 ½ pages directly from the suit to substantiate its claims. In all my years of reading ‘research’ reports this was a first. What happen to the saying innocent until proven guilty? Instead of having this suit tried in court this ‘Research’ company has tried and convicted ABAT in the court of public opinion.  
                      Could it be the plaintiff is out of work and has an elaborate life style. Maybe he should have filed a complaint against ABAT that states, ‘My former employer treated me with the utmost respect throughout our relationship. I deserved to be terminated.   Unfortunately I need a large sum of money as in addition to my regular family, I have a girlfriend who has extravagant tastes to support. I saw this suit as one means of retaining this lifestyle.’   How ludicrous that any ‘research’ firm uses language from a lawsuit to substantiate their position.
                      Here’s Variant View Research article:
                      You be the judge….Credible or incredible?  
    What Advanced Battery Technology Needs to Do:
    Chinese stocks in general lack transparency needed to answer all legitimate accounting and other issues.   This lack of clarity is brought about by cultural and language differences and the fact that GAAP or IAS are still relatively new to growing companies in that region.   I have legitimate accounting issues with ABAT’s financials, however, I considered these issues more a case of a Chinese company learning curve in proper accounting methods instead of differences made to defraud investors. 
    Management at ABAT needs to be proactive at this point as the attacks will keep coming from anonymous sources short in ABAT stock. Seemingly ‘knowledgeable’ individuals will be given instant credibility by writing a Seeking Alpha article based on ‘spewing facts and figures’ that purposely distort the truth.   They want you to abandon your stock at any price solely to enhance their wealth.  I own a stock with a similar past, ZAGG.    ZAGG had an egregious attacker posting his short rants on Seeking Alpha. The articles too went viral. The allegations also caused the stock of ZAGG to drop precipitously.    Finally the company took the following action:
    ‘ZAGG has issued a statement refuting the implications in a recent blog posted on Seeking Alpha about the company, which Zagg claims was issued specifically to cause a decline in the company stock price to support the increase in the short interest in the company stock, and purchases of stock options related to these short positions. The company has begun an investigation into the circumstances around the trading in ZAGG stock and options on Thursday, Dec.16, 2010, and has filed a formal complaint with the Chicago Board Options Exchange. Zagg says it will report this matter to the SEC and take other appropriate action if needed. has filed a formal complaint with the Chicago Board Options Exchange and will report this matter to the Securities and Exchange Commission's Division of Trading and Markets and Division of Enforcement. The company will take other appropriate action if needed to protect its business operations and the reputation of its management team, board of directors, employees and partners.’
    Since that time the poster has not had any other article posted other than on the Seeking Alpha site.   His short rants continue and border on ridiculous, however, his national platform to rant has been removed.  Seeking Alpha does know who posts these articles and can provide that information to ABAT attorneys once ABAT proceeds as ZAGG.    
    For an unsophisticated investor I would recommend buying a mutual fund with Chinese stocks based on recommendations from your financial advisor.   As I’m a knowledgeable investor, I bought this stock, because even with some legitimate outstanding issues, I wanted to be at the fore front of what could be an explosive growth story in China. Also, truthfully I was not very happy with the last earnings report. If this was a fictitious company, as claimed by Variant View Research, couldn’t they come up with a better number?  
    In any event, companies in China need to be more proactive in investor relations including holding regular earnings conference calls to address valid investor questions and concerns. This will go far to establish the creditability of the company and dispel a lot of egregious short’s. As time goes on the legitimate companies will come forth and become more transparent. Those who don’t will pay the piper as there are some companies out there that are not legitimate. The S.E.C. recent proclamation to investigate RTO’s is a good thing for all who want to find good investment opportunities in China.  
    Finally, consider the source prior to evaluating content of any ‘research’ article.  If you don’t know anything about the source how do you know they are credible? Above all do your due diligence and remember what Ronald Reagan said….’Trust, but verify’.
    I have a 5,000 share long position in Advanced Battery Technology and recently bought 3,000 shares more on April 11th. My position in ABAT is an insignificant portion of my total portfolio. My name is Steven Borovay. I am CFP® and I have over 32 years investment experience. 

Back To OldCFO'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 (2)
Track new comments
  • dad_is_board
    , contributor
    Comments (27) | Send Message
    RE: I have a 5,000 share long position in Advanced Battery Technology and recently bought 3,000 shares more on April 11th. My position in ABAT is an insignificant portion of my total portfolio. My name is Steven Borovay. I am CFP® and I have over 32 years investment experience.


    Well Steve, you are getting a hard lesson in the reality of these Chinese reverse mergers. They are all junk. There is a reason that they do not just issue an IPO like BIDU and other reputable Chinese companies.


    32 years and you haven't learned jack about international trading and greed.


    Disclosure: I would not own a Chinese reverse merger if it was free.
    29 Apr 2011, 01:51 PM Reply Like
  • OldCFO
    , contributor
    Comments (19) | Send Message
    Author’s reply » Actually this in the first Chinese company in 32 years I have invested in because I could not get my hands around a number of legitimate issues I had with these stocks. Even at my age I learn lessons every day. Hopefully I'm right. But my investment in this company was so small and losses minimal in comparison to my net worth.


    What motivated me to write the article, is that based on my experience, that includes IRS and Dept of Corporation investigations, it's impossible to proof or disproof VVR's allegations without complete access to ABAT's books. The article was written strictly for the intention of driving the stock of ABAT into the ground. The truth did not matter to the writer(s). What mattered was to show enough convincing damaging information from the company's financials and news releases to convince people to abandon the stock at any price. All's I'm saying is that by copying and pasting selective information showing fraud lacks creditibilty as I want to see the original accounting entries to substantiate VVR's accusations.
    29 Apr 2011, 03:37 PM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers
Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.