Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View rmartin929's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Yongye: Another Chinese Investment Opportunity Beaten Down by Shorts [View article]
    OK I did the research just to get up to speed. If I interpret this:
    2010 2009
    Customer A 29,004,998 30% Customer A 20,541,267 43%
    Customer B 18,534,320 19% Customer D 6,886,624 14%
    Customer C 16,745,156 17% Customer F 6,291,070 13%
    Customer D 9,950,840 10% Customer B 5,663,011 12%
    Customer E 6,038,692 6% Customer G 4,727,842 10%
    Total 80,274,006 82% Total 44,109,814 92%

    2010 sales added 3 major distributors: B,C, & E

    Highly concentrated customer base,

    Read a little on Reg S-K Item 101
    "The dependence of the segment upon a single customer, or a few customers, the loss of any one or more of which would have a material adverse effect on the segment. The name of any customer and its relationship, if any, with the registrant or its subsidiaries shall be disclosed if sales to the customer by one or more segments are made in an aggregate amount equal to 10 percent or more of the registrant's consolidated revenues and the loss of such customer would have a material adverse effect on the registrant and its subsidiaries taken as a whole."

    I must admit you have a point here. In 10K they obviously document the concentration of sales, but do not clearly ID customers nor relationship (if any).

    However, in regard SFAS: SFAS No. 131

    now requires issuers to disclose the amount of revenues from each external customer that amounts to 10 percent or more of an enterprise’s revenue as well as the identity of the segment(s) reporting the revenues. The accounting standards, however, have never required issuers to identify major customers.

    To me it looks like an auditor could sign off based on SFAS. Accounting standards, but you are correct in that it does not address the S-K regulations.

    I assume the company has not responded to this.

    If they just named their top 3 that would be 66% of sales.

    Not invested yet, but my gut tells me they just don't want to list their customers for the reason no company wants to disclose that - competition. It's also a culturally secretive society - I know that doesn't fly for a US listed stock.

    Feb 28, 2011. 04:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yongye: Another Chinese Investment Opportunity Beaten Down by Shorts [View article]
    Admittedly not an expert in SEC rules. Why don't you just contact the SEC or the co. and see if you get a response? Then we could both sleep better at night.
    Feb 28, 2011. 03:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Yongye: Another Chinese Investment Opportunity Beaten Down by Shorts [View article]
    Focusing on Petit, Petite, Pedro ... whatever. The author sites the IMARSTB comments regarding fulic acid. I did a quick search and it works for cucumbers "addition of 100 to 300 ppm of FA produced highly significant increases in the growth and development of above and below ground plant parts, in the uptake of nutrient elements (N, P, K, Ca, Mg, Cu, Fe and Zn), and in the formation of numbers of flowers per plant"

    It's likely not nonotech high-tech, biotech, fertilizer, but the farmers seem to like it. And we're talking about a country where bear gall bladders are fairly popular as an aphrodisiac.

    And the distribution has been addressed by the co. and a number of authors. Sell to distributors, that sell to small stores (many are tiny family owned).

    Anyway, the shorts have retreated to FUD with questions noone is going to answer (as with other stocks). Give me the names and addresses of your customers. What business does that as std. practice? Obviously, most of them have made a bunch on these bear raids, but now I think some of the more "unstable" authors are either trying to make a name for themselves or just are so determined to be right that they defend and attack with vim.

    I actually appreciate their efforts as I am now skimming through the carnage to determine the best buys. And while I'm not overly excited about fertilizer the valuation and growth here is very compelling.

    OH!!! And I suggest per above comment by BEA that everyone do some research on:

    1. The number of times that someone claimed a particular commodity product would work in some way that IT DIDN"T. ("I will give him a hint - there have been many times." INSANE :))
    2. The number of times that someone claimed a product will work in some way and IT DID.

    * someone can be anyone for this study: company, girllfriend, barber. I want it to be comprehensive
    * when including "someone" in your study results please provide their name, address, phone and email

    Please do your research and get back to me with your results. I will tabulate the answers and write my 1st SA article. Will which be titled " Product Claims That Did and Didn't"

    I am also hoping to do a blockbuster article on "Weather Forecasts That Did and Didn't"

    Kinda like a "How to for Dummies" book series. I think it will pretty good.
    Feb 28, 2011. 01:18 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yongye International (YONG): Is Their Story Too Good To Be True? [View instapost]
    You must have gotten burned bad?! I have been reading some of your research and lot of your insanity as I research a few stocks. You should get some help, try yoga, get a girlfriend, get some sunshine once in awhile. Your ongoing babbling about why your speculation and deductions are pure reality and everyone else's are just pumpers and unworthy. Anyone you seem very angry and hurt and I won't engage further because I value my time. Just a recommendation so you don't look back one day and say what hell was I doing with my precious time?

    *** I know you will argue every single point. So yes "You say you value your time, but yet you are posting here???" Thought I'd save you the time for your response.
    Feb 26, 2011. 02:07 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Conservative, Bullish Trading Strategy on Protalix Biotherapeutics' PDUFA Date [View article]
    Just to clarify I meant AdCom's. Advisory Committees. Oh and thanks, I think this clarifies it :) To me it reads and Adcom is used at the discretion of the FDA. Seems strange to me they would use the AdCom at all pre-approval just seems to muddy the water since FDA has final say. But maybe just a way to get more input/brains. Good article out here on SA called something like 'No means no, yes mean maybe regarding Adcoms.
    Feb 19, 2011. 01:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Conservative, Bullish Trading Strategy on Protalix Biotherapeutics' PDUFA Date [View article]
    Since you seem to be online. I posted a question earlier about review boards and maybe you can help. When, why, what are FDA review panels/boards utilized. I saw that OREX's drug went before a FDA review board, but many other drugs do not seem to go that path. Is it an elective process or at times required?
    Feb 19, 2011. 01:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Conservative, Bullish Trading Strategy on Protalix Biotherapeutics' PDUFA Date [View article]
    What are your thoughts on strangle trade. I think the move to the down side would be larger move; since as you point out the need for cash regardless of outcome.

    Maybe buy the $5 puts and where to position the call $10 or $12.50. Like to see your thoughts.
    Feb 19, 2011. 12:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Warning Biotech Investors: FDA Advisory Panels' No Means No, Yes Means Maybe [View article]
    When does a drug maker us an AdCom? Is it required? Can you give a little info as to when, why, or why not they are utiliized?

    It appears to me that not all drugs up for approval use the AdCom.
    Feb 9, 2011. 03:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amarin: Pending Catalysts, Potential Breakthrough [View article]
    I was searching this also. Found this patent app. on the Yahoo msg. baord

    Method of use app. It's my understanding these are easier to get around than a patent based on the drug composition.
    Feb 7, 2011. 09:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment