Let me get this straight. First of all, you are telling me not to reference investment banks while you referenced Roth Capital in your original article on Zhongpin? How inconsistent! Either you believe Roth Capital or you don't. You are trying to twisted the story by making use of their claims that agree with your story while refuting their other claims that refute your thesis. By the way, Roth Capital merely raised a question about Zhongpin's capex (which Laoding provided a good answer to that in the above), it was totally not the equivalent of a fraud call.
Secondly, in the articles you've cited, you were only trying to prove that SAIC filings of FIE were audited, but that wasn't even my point at all. I was questioning about the reliability of SAIC-SEC comparison, not whether SAIC filings were audited or not. You said "when Roth actually shows us how they reconcile the differences, then they can talk." From that, I see you are merely speculating that accounting principles could not explain part of the difference in Zhongpin's earnings. I can make an equivalent statement that "unless Geoinvesting can show me how the differences are not reconcilable, they can talk." Actually that is a better arguement than yours since you are claiming Zhongpin is a fraud, thus you must provide definitive proof, not speculation. By the way, Zhongpin explained perfectly clear in their conference call that part of the difference was caused by different treatment of a writedown in 2009 between Chinese and U.S. GAAP. What you have is mere speculation based on an incomplete set of SAIC filings you've gathered.
Finally, the logical inconsistency shown in your article about Zhongpin makes me wonder how serious should you be taken by the investment community. Here is one example. You claim in your article that Zhongpin's 2008 SAIC filing for its wholly-owned parent company was manipulated. I think you can either trust the SAIC or you can't, and there is no middle ground. If SAIC filings could be easily manipulated, we must disregard SAIC filing altogether because the accuracy and reliability of these filings simply could not be guaranteed. But if we do accept that SAIC is an impartial and just enforcer of regulations, then the company's 2008 SAIC filings for its wholly-owned parent company, which matched its SEC filings quite well according to you, should be telling the whole story. Otherwise the SAIC would charge Zhongpin for false reporting, but we've heard nothing of the sort. You can't just say the incomplete set of SAIC filings you gathered on Zhongpin's subsidiaries is accurate because it support your thesis, and the SAIC filing for the wholly-owned parent company was manipulated because it doesn't support your claim. Be consistent.
I am not even going to talk about store numbers and capex expenditures as they are already proven or justified by other investors. Debates on SAIC filings remains inconclusive, but it is in my opinion that they should be disregarded.
I wonder how useful the comparison between SAIC and SEC filings could be, given they are produced under different accounting principles and government regulations. The following is an excellent article that explains the unreliability of such comparisons (including comments cited from Roth Capital Partners' report on this topic). http://bit.ly/yICmaz
Zhongpin: Overstated Income, Excessive Capex and Deceptive SAIC Filings [View article]
First of all, you are telling me not to reference investment banks while you referenced Roth Capital in your original article on Zhongpin? How inconsistent! Either you believe Roth Capital or you don't. You are trying to twisted the story by making use of their claims that agree with your story while refuting their other claims that refute your thesis. By the way, Roth Capital merely raised a question about Zhongpin's capex (which Laoding provided a good answer to that in the above), it was totally not the equivalent of a fraud call.
Secondly, in the articles you've cited, you were only trying to prove that SAIC filings of FIE were audited, but that wasn't even my point at all. I was questioning about the reliability of SAIC-SEC comparison, not whether SAIC filings were audited or not. You said "when Roth actually shows us how they reconcile the differences, then they can talk." From that, I see you are merely speculating that accounting principles could not explain part of the difference in Zhongpin's earnings. I can make an equivalent statement that "unless Geoinvesting can show me how the differences are not reconcilable, they can talk." Actually that is a better arguement than yours since you are claiming Zhongpin is a fraud, thus you must provide definitive proof, not speculation. By the way, Zhongpin explained perfectly clear in their conference call that part of the difference was caused by different treatment of a writedown in 2009 between Chinese and U.S. GAAP. What you have is mere speculation based on an incomplete set of SAIC filings you've gathered.
Finally, the logical inconsistency shown in your article about Zhongpin makes me wonder how serious should you be taken by the investment community. Here is one example. You claim in your article that Zhongpin's 2008 SAIC filing for its wholly-owned parent company was manipulated. I think you can either trust the SAIC or you can't, and there is no middle ground. If SAIC filings could be easily manipulated, we must disregard SAIC filing altogether because the accuracy and reliability of these filings simply could not be guaranteed. But if we do accept that SAIC is an impartial and just enforcer of regulations, then the company's 2008 SAIC filings for its wholly-owned parent company, which matched its SEC filings quite well according to you, should be telling the whole story. Otherwise the SAIC would charge Zhongpin for false reporting, but we've heard nothing of the sort. You can't just say the incomplete set of SAIC filings you gathered on Zhongpin's subsidiaries is accurate because it support your thesis, and the SAIC filing for the wholly-owned parent company was manipulated because it doesn't support your claim. Be consistent.
I am not even going to talk about store numbers and capex expenditures as they are already proven or justified by other investors. Debates on SAIC filings remains inconclusive, but it is in my opinion that they should be disregarded.
Zhongpin: Overstated Income, Excessive Capex and Deceptive SAIC Filings [View article]
http://bit.ly/yICmaz