Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
No, it is not her job to create a spreadsheet contains all bus information of CCME company.
Such information can only be stored in company computer database. If needed, one can pull it out from company database, the output format will be uniform and consistent. However, the spreadsheet she created contained many inconsistent formats and missing routes.
She clearly denied that she have sent the spreadsheet to any other customer. She only sent it to MW, that was why she suspected MW leaking the spreadsheet.
It was clearly demonstrated in the conversation, she created the spreadsheet only for MW.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Let us go back.
Do you agree that she created the spreadsheet ?
If yes, that means the spreadsheet is not CCME official document. If the spreadsheet is not CCME official document, then it has no importance what so ever. Any further discussion is not needed.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
You really low IQ or simply play dumb to fool investors ?
"The lady clearly states that they report x number to the clients and double that number to the SEC. "
Again you put your words into her month. She said 1) The spreadsheet contains the bus number installed with devices 2) CCME reports the bus number under contracts The "multiplied by 2, or double" just words, should not been taken it seriously.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
No, you got it all wrong. If she was telling the truth, it means 1) No fault on CCME, since CCME always reports bus numbers on contract 2) CCME only uses its half capacity. When all buses are installed with the devices, CCME revenue will be double :)
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
If you read the transcript, you can only see that MW tried to mislead the CCME salesgirl to implicate CCME, such as "sending this proposal to other customers".
All she did in this conversation was to find out if MW leaked the spreadsheet and asked MW to eliminate all evidences related to her.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
"CCME Rep: When we reported to the details to the stock market regulator, we didn't report the number of vehicles we quoted you. The number we reported is multiplied by two, or doubled. Do you understand now ?"
If you quote, you should quote the whole content, not stop in the middle with different meaning. Here is what she said in the following:
"CCME Rep: Because we're a public company, we must reach the number of vehicles, and we've only installed devices on some of the vehicles, and some vehicles aren't installed with devices.
The number of vehicles we've claimed to the public is the total number, but the number I (MW used "we" here) gave you is the vehicles installed with devices. So there are some conflicts."
What she said here are: 1). CCME reports the bus number under contract to SEC, nothing wrong here. 2). Her spreadsheet for MW only contains the vehicles installed with devices. She lied! That is why she wanted MW to destroy the evidence. Her spreadsheet was just lousy fabricated, low quality work.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Andrew, thank you for your suggestions. I have added "I am a Chinese native speaker" on my profile.
Thanks for your hard work defending CCME! It is more and more clear that there is nothing wrong with CCME. Also Deloitte did a through investigation on its auditing process. Deloitte also involved in investigating who fabricated the spreadsheet, which should not be the work of Deloitte.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
"Sorry, I stopped reading after the words 'our analyst' What was the analysts name to put to this latest 'report' why on earth would the analysts voice be disguised!!?"
You need to watch the video. That was MW said himself originally in the video, not my translation or comments.
CCME: A Good Deal Thanks to the Shorts [View article]
Glen, great article! Shorts attack every article which tells the truth about CCME. Shorts support every article bashed CCME, even that article was based on fabricated or forged documents. Clearly, shorts do not care about the truth. They only care about how to drive down the stock price of CCME and create fear among investors.
However, it is more and more clear to investors that CCME is real company with superior business model. Shorts attacking also gets weaker and less effective. It is laughable that these shorts attacked Glen with all these nonsense arguments. Anyone with a reasonable IQ should see through the tricks of shorts.
However, shorts have vast amount money and well connected with media. As long, we can not manipulate CCME stock price like shorts do. However, we can do something to protect our investment. We should do the following things; 1). Call your brokerage to restricting your CCME shares to be lent to shorts. Also you can set sell orders GTC at high price such as $50 for CCME shares. This will make your brokerage hesitate to lend your shares to shorts.
2). Do not set stop loss orders. Shorts always attack CCME during weak trading volume. A 10% swing is very common when shorts attack. Your 10% or 15% stop loss order will be certainly triggered when shorts attack and this will create even big fall on CCME stock price, which in turn trigger more stop loss orders. If you have any doubt on CCME, instead of setting a stop loss order, you should sell it on next Tuesday morning. You will guarantee to get a much better price.
For those longs who believe CCME, we should hold our CCME shares tight no matter what. We will win in the end. There is almost zero chance that CCME can fool the Chinese government, Starr, Deloitte, GH and wctbills all together at the same time.
Red Flags at China MediaExpress: Significantly Mismatched Filings in China, U.S. [View article]
I have submitted a dispute with this article. The following is my words submitted to SA:
The whole article arguments were based on the SAT documents obtained "within the SAT system" (Chimin own words in the article). However this SAT documents were forged. I have three reasons to prove it:
I have downloaded the original copy from Chimin's article. So all comments below refer to the original copy
1). On page 6, 7, 8, which are the forms for SAT in 2008, 2009 and 2010 Q4, there are no seals of company CCME and Chinese tax authority on the bottom of the form, which are required in the form. There are also no signatures of the representative of the company CCME either. This along proves that these SAT documents were not from "within the SAT system". Anyone with a little knowledge with Chinese legal system, all Chinese official documents must have seals. There is no legal binding power without seals.
2). On page 8, the SAT form for 2010 Q4, in the title, the tax year was written as 2008. Chimin explained that was a typo. However, Chinese official documents require very high standard, even a modification of a character using liquid paper is not allowed. SAT would certainly return this form with such huge mistake like wrong tax year. So this form can not be from "within the SAT system".
3). Supposed page 8 was a typo of wrong tax year on the title. Then we notice this form was filed on Jan 7, 2011. It means CCME filed tax return within 7 days after the quarter end. Do you think that is possible ? Again, isn't tax Q4 a inside information of CCME, how can Chimin obtain such important information.
The most important is the first one. The person who forged the documents did not have the nerve to forge the seals, since forging seal is a crime of felony in China.
Without the SAT documents, then Chimin's whole article was baseless. The SAIC numbers can not used for comparing with SEC number. People with knowledge of Chinese system will know that SAIC is for registration only and SAIC do not review the financial statements. That is why Chimin needs SAT documents to write this article. Unfortunately, his SAT documents were forged and also forged poorly.
Review of U.S. Listed Chinese Company Ownership Structures [View article]
Hello Maj, To response to your statement: "With CCME i would be asking how the market may react to what looks like weak EPS growth for the remainder of 2010 and 2011. This is more of an issue in my opinion."
I would not worry about weak EPS growth. The reasons are: 1). This is just estimated numbers. CCME has always beaten its EPS. 2). CCME is not a tech company. If it were a tech company, I would worry, because usually means its competitors have a better products or lowing prices. CCME is monopoly company in its field. Its ads rate is only about 3% of TV stations. It has lots of room to grow. 3). CCME has a large cash position. They may use the cash to acquire new business.
Review of U.S. Listed Chinese Company Ownership Structures [View article]
When I first look at a company, the first thing I check is its business model. If the business model is right, especially have some kind of monopoly position, the company is hard not to earn money. These include big companies like GOOG, BIDU, PCLN. CCME is also in this category, its ads is highly effective. CCME get the monopoly position by its long term contracts with the bus operators.
I think there are lots of scrutinizes on China stocks from US investors. Most of them are due to lock of knowledge to Chinese system. Actually, China has implemented far more tight regulations on accounting and tax. For example, in US, when you rent a room for business use, the room owner can write a receipt to you and you can use it as proof of your expense. In China, the own written receipt can not be legally accepted in the Chinese accounting system. The owner must go to the local tax office to pay tax on the rent and then get an official receipt. This receipt can only be legally recognized in the Chinese accounting system as an expense.
If a company is without a good business model, but with a good profit, I would scrutinize its financial statement. However, if a company have a good business model, with a major accounting firm as its auditor, and private fund STARR as its investor, I would be comfortable to believe its financial statement.
There are two things a company are difficult to fake: cash position and tax. Both are easy to be verified. The tax will determine its profit, since the tax rate is fixed. The tax CCME paid last quarter was $9.9M, about 25% its pre-tax profit. This is hard to fake, since CCME has to give $9.9M to the Chinese government.
To summarize my opinions on CCME why it can be a fraud ? 1). It has a good and monopoly business model 2). A fraud company would not buy back its stocks 3). A fraud company would not use a major accounting firm 4). Private fund like STARR would not invest into a fraud company
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Such information can only be stored in company computer database. If needed, one can pull it out from company database, the output format will be uniform and consistent. However, the spreadsheet she created contained many inconsistent formats and missing routes.
She clearly denied that she have sent the spreadsheet to any other customer. She only sent it to MW, that was why she suspected MW leaking the spreadsheet.
It was clearly demonstrated in the conversation, she created the spreadsheet only for MW.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Do you agree that she created the spreadsheet ?
If yes, that means the spreadsheet is not CCME official document. If the spreadsheet is not CCME official document, then it has no importance what so ever. Any further discussion is not needed.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
"The lady clearly states that they report x number to the clients and double that number to the SEC. "
Again you put your words into her month. She said
1) The spreadsheet contains the bus number installed with devices
2) CCME reports the bus number under contracts
The "multiplied by 2, or double" just words, should not been taken it seriously.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
1) No fault on CCME, since CCME always reports bus numbers on contract
2) CCME only uses its half capacity. When all buses are installed with the devices, CCME revenue will be double :)
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
All she did in this conversation was to find out if MW leaked the spreadsheet and asked MW to eliminate all evidences related to her.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
If you quote, you should quote the whole content, not stop in the middle with different meaning. Here is what she said in the following:
"CCME Rep: Because we're a public company, we must reach the number of vehicles, and we've only installed devices on some of the vehicles, and some vehicles aren't installed with devices.
The number of vehicles we've claimed to the public is the total number, but the number I (MW used "we" here) gave you is the vehicles installed with devices. So there are some conflicts."
What she said here are:
1). CCME reports the bus number under contract to SEC, nothing wrong here.
2). Her spreadsheet for MW only contains the vehicles installed with devices. She lied! That is why she wanted MW to destroy the evidence. Her spreadsheet was just lousy fabricated, low quality work.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
The video of the conversation actually revealed that MW used a fabricated spreadsheet. MW knew it already, But MW still used it in his hit pieces.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Thanks for your hard work defending CCME! It is more and more clear that there is nothing wrong with CCME. Also Deloitte did a through investigation on its auditing process. Deloitte also involved in investigating who fabricated the spreadsheet, which should not be the work of Deloitte.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
However, her responses and her tone were all natural. I think she is a real CCME salesgirl.
Full transcripts of MW conversation with CCME salesgirl with my comments [View instapost]
What was the analysts name to put to this latest 'report' why on earth would the analysts voice be disguised!!?"
You need to watch the video. That was MW said himself originally in the video, not my translation or comments.
CCME: A Good Deal Thanks to the Shorts [View article]
However, it is more and more clear to investors that CCME is real company with superior business model. Shorts attacking also gets weaker and less effective. It is laughable that these shorts attacked Glen with all these nonsense arguments. Anyone with a reasonable IQ should see through the tricks of shorts.
However, shorts have vast amount money and well connected with media. As long, we can not manipulate CCME stock price like shorts do. However, we can do something to protect our investment. We should do the following things;
1). Call your brokerage to restricting your CCME shares to be lent to shorts. Also you can set sell orders GTC at high price such as $50 for CCME shares. This will make your brokerage hesitate to lend your shares to shorts.
2). Do not set stop loss orders. Shorts always attack CCME during weak trading volume. A 10% swing is very common when shorts attack. Your 10% or 15% stop loss order will be certainly triggered when shorts attack and this will create even big fall on CCME stock price, which in turn trigger more stop loss orders. If you have any doubt on CCME, instead of setting a stop loss order, you should sell it on next Tuesday morning. You will guarantee to get a much better price.
For those longs who believe CCME, we should hold our CCME shares tight no matter what. We will win in the end. There is almost zero chance that CCME can fool the Chinese government, Starr, Deloitte, GH and wctbills all together at the same time.
Red Flags at China MediaExpress: Significantly Mismatched Filings in China, U.S. [View article]
The whole article arguments were based on the SAT documents obtained "within the SAT system" (Chimin own words in the article). However this SAT documents were forged. I have three reasons to prove it:
I have downloaded the original copy from Chimin's article. So all comments below refer to the original copy
1). On page 6, 7, 8, which are the forms for SAT in 2008, 2009 and 2010 Q4, there are no seals of company CCME and Chinese tax authority on the bottom of the form, which are required in the form. There are also no signatures of the representative of the company CCME either. This along proves that these SAT documents were not from "within the SAT system". Anyone with a little knowledge with Chinese legal system, all Chinese official documents must have seals. There is no legal binding power without seals.
2). On page 8, the SAT form for 2010 Q4, in the title, the tax year was written as 2008. Chimin explained that was a typo. However, Chinese official documents require very high standard, even a modification of a character using liquid paper is not allowed. SAT would certainly return this form with such huge mistake like wrong tax year. So this form can not be from "within the SAT system".
3). Supposed page 8 was a typo of wrong tax year on the title. Then we notice this form was filed on Jan 7, 2011. It means CCME filed tax return within 7 days after the quarter end. Do you think that is possible ? Again, isn't tax Q4 a inside information of CCME, how can Chimin obtain such important information.
The most important is the first one. The person who forged the documents did not have the nerve to forge the seals, since forging seal is a crime of felony in China.
Without the SAT documents, then Chimin's whole article was baseless. The SAIC numbers can not used for comparing with SEC number. People with knowledge of Chinese system will know that SAIC is for registration only and SAIC do not review the financial statements. That is why Chimin needs SAT documents to write this article. Unfortunately, his SAT documents were forged and also forged poorly.
Review of U.S. Listed Chinese Company Ownership Structures [View article]
To response to your statement:
"With CCME i would be asking how the market may react to what looks like weak EPS growth for the remainder of 2010 and 2011. This is more of an issue in my opinion."
I would not worry about weak EPS growth. The reasons are:
1). This is just estimated numbers. CCME has always beaten its EPS.
2). CCME is not a tech company. If it were a tech company, I would worry, because usually means its competitors have a better products or lowing prices. CCME is monopoly company in its field. Its ads rate is only about 3% of TV stations. It has lots of room to grow.
3). CCME has a large cash position. They may use the cash to acquire new business.
Review of U.S. Listed Chinese Company Ownership Structures [View article]
get the monopoly position by its long term contracts with the bus operators.
I think there are lots of scrutinizes on China stocks from US investors. Most of them are due to lock of knowledge to Chinese system. Actually, China has implemented far more tight regulations on accounting and tax. For example, in US, when you rent a room for business use, the room owner can write a receipt to you and you can use it as proof of your expense. In China, the own written receipt can not be legally accepted in the Chinese accounting
system. The owner must go to the local tax office to pay tax on the rent and then get an official receipt. This receipt can only be legally recognized in the Chinese accounting system as an expense.
If a company is without a good business model, but with a good profit, I would scrutinize its financial statement. However, if a company have a good business model, with a major accounting firm as its auditor, and private fund STARR as its investor,
I would be comfortable to believe its financial statement.
There are two things a company are difficult to fake: cash position and tax. Both are easy to be verified. The tax will determine its profit, since the tax rate is fixed. The tax CCME paid last quarter was $9.9M, about 25% its pre-tax profit. This is hard to fake, since CCME has to give $9.9M to the Chinese government.
To summarize my opinions on CCME why it can be a fraud ?
1). It has a good and monopoly business model
2). A fraud company would not buy back its stocks
3). A fraud company would not use a major accounting firm
4). Private fund like STARR would not invest into a fraud company