Another Article on Block

[libor.plus1]

"Besides if MW went the legal route, some other firm would eventually short the stock, write research and end the fraud much quicker than the legal process ever could."

 

Once again you make the assumption that Block's allegations are correct. What, other than Block's say so and a belief that all Chinese stocks are frauds, leads you to this conclusion?

 

Just a note of interest to all those who put so much faith in Carson Block.

 

Do you just ignore the fact that Wellington has acquired 11.5% of this company. Do you really think they would do that if they believed this was a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme?

 

And now it has just been announced that Richard Chandler Corp has just purchased 10.9% of the company at about $4.06 per share.

 

So, going back to the credibility issue, who do you believe? These separate funds, who have jumped in with both feet and invested hundreds of millions of their own money or Carson Block?

 

 

Cwericb, my comment was directed at Sanjeev's post re: logical to write a report, than to drag it through the court system.

 

Regarding Sino and accusations I have said that I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle regarding Sino, although to be fair, Block's work has exposed definite frauds that have now been delisted. So does he have credibility? absolutely.

 

As far as Wellington goes, that 11.5% stake is money that the company found under the mattress. It means nothing given Wellington's size. I am not familiar with Richard Chandler to comment.

 

As for the poster above me who's name I forget: Yes, one thing that bothers me about the MW report is that he messed up on the standing timber model. At the same time, something that bothers me about Sino is the "we let other people worry about our taxes". Like I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[cwericb]

Libor, I was quoting from Hester and that was not aimed at you. I think that you and I are the same page, it is just a matter of degree.

 

On the credibility factor, MW also released another report on a different company (I forget which one) and it was shown to be false. If he accurately uncovers fraud, more power to him, but if he tries to take a company down with innuendos and false or misleading information, then that is a whole different story.

 

Also, I don't care how big a company is, no company blows $100,000,000 without a good possibility of return. Yes it may be small potatoes on the grand scale of things, but don't you think that if they lost $100,000,000 that some people are going to have to account for that? Companies just don't work that way. A hundred million or so may not be a significant portion of their net worth, but I can assure you that it does matter to some department and in turn some employees. "Sorry boss but I just blew a hundred mil on that Sino deal but it's no big deal cause we've got lots more." Don't think that would cut it.

 

And now that another fund has come in at over $4.00 wouldn't you expect that they feel the company is worth much more?

 

[cwericb]

Correction on Chandlers purchase. I believe that they only increased their holdings by 10% and purchases about 2.5 million shares yesterday. Still their net ownership stands at slightly less than 11% and it would seem to be a positive sign since they are buying rather than selling.

[twacowfca]

"Besides if MW went the legal route, some other firm would eventually short the stock, write research and end the fraud much quicker than the legal process ever could."

 

Once again you make the assumption that Block's allegations are correct. What, other than Block's say so and a belief that all Chinese stocks are frauds, leads you to this conclusion?

 

Just a note of interest to all those who put so much faith in Carson Block.

 

Do you just ignore the fact that Wellington has acquired 11.5% of this company. Do you really think they would do that if they believed this was a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme?

 

And now it has just been announced that Richard Chandler Corp has just purchased 10.9% of the company at about $4.06 per share.

 

So, going back to the credibility issue, who do you believe? These separate funds, who have jumped in with both feet and invested hundreds of millions of their own money or Carson Block?

 

 

Cwericb, my comment was directed at Sanjeev's post re: logical to write a report, than to drag it through the court system.

 

Regarding Sino and accusations I have said that I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle regarding Sino, although to be fair, Block's work has exposed definite frauds that have now been delisted. So does he have credibility? absolutely.

 

As far as Wellington goes, that 11.5% stake is money that the company found under the mattress. It means nothing given Wellington's size. I am not familiar with Richard Chandler to comment.

 

As for the poster above me who's name I forget: Yes, one thing that bothers me about the MW report is that he messed up on the standing timber model. At the same time, something that bothers me about Sino is the "we let other people worry about our taxes". Like I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Somewhere in between?  Let's see, if you mix stinky fraud with raisins, what have you got?  

 

Also, for the sake of argument lets grant that Block messed up on the nature of the timber sales.  ( by the way, I don't have a horse in this race, and I know nothing about Mr. Block other than what others have posted ).  

 

However, lets look at the undisputed fact: Sino says it sold a huge amount of timber.  But they didn't do it the way timber companies usually sell timber, by cutting it and selling it. They say they sold it through a paper transaction that's not potentially verifiable through industry sources ( loggers, truckers, sawmills etc. ) as a physical harvesting and sale would be.  So, here we have a huge timber company that apparently isn't engaged much at all in what timber companies usually do.  That doesn't prove fraud, but I find that fact  most peculiar.   ???

[libor.plus1]

"Besides if MW went the legal route, some other firm would eventually short the stock, write research and end the fraud much quicker than the legal process ever could."

 

Once again you make the assumption that Block's allegations are correct. What, other than Block's say so and a belief that all Chinese stocks are frauds, leads you to this conclusion?

 

Just a note of interest to all those who put so much faith in Carson Block.

 

Do you just ignore the fact that Wellington has acquired 11.5% of this company. Do you really think they would do that if they believed this was a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme?

 

And now it has just been announced that Richard Chandler Corp has just purchased 10.9% of the company at about $4.06 per share.

 

So, going back to the credibility issue, who do you believe? These separate funds, who have jumped in with both feet and invested hundreds of millions of their own money or Carson Block?

 

 

Cwericb, my comment was directed at Sanjeev's post re: logical to write a report, than to drag it through the court system.

 

Regarding Sino and accusations I have said that I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle regarding Sino, although to be fair, Block's work has exposed definite frauds that have now been delisted. So does he have credibility? absolutely.

 

As far as Wellington goes, that 11.5% stake is money that the company found under the mattress. It means nothing given Wellington's size. I am not familiar with Richard Chandler to comment.

 

As for the poster above me who's name I forget: Yes, one thing that bothers me about the MW report is that he messed up on the standing timber model. At the same time, something that bothers me about Sino is the "we let other people worry about our taxes". Like I said, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

 

Somewhere in between?  Let's see, if you mix stinky fraud with raisins, what have you got?  

 

Also, for the sake of argument lets grant that Block messed up on the nature of the timber sales.  ( by the way, I don't have a horse in this race, and I know nothing about Mr. Block other than what others have posted ).  

 

However, lets look at the undisputed fact: Sino says it sold a huge amount of timber.  But they didn't do it the way timber companies usually sell timber, by cutting it and selling it. They say they sold it through a paper transaction that's not potentially verifiable through industry sources ( loggers, truckers, sawmills etc. ) as a physical harvesting and sale would be.  So, here we have a huge timber company that apparently isn't engaged much at all in what timber companies usually do.  That doesn't prove fraud, but I find that fact  most peculiar.   ???

 

Agreed. That's why cwericb says we are on different ends of the same view. I am much more inclined to believe theres a lot of shinanigans here.

[Parsad]

You're joking right?

 

How long do you think a case like that, involving cross border dealings would take to complete? How much money? He's exposed 5 frauds in the last year, and let the market worry about it.

 

Not at all.  This is the way the rest of world works does it not?  We have a legal system for a reason, correct?

 

Also, going to law school does not make you an attorney.

 

I didn't say he should run the case himself.  Prem's not an attorney is he?  How about Patrick Byrne?  

 

Block could have filed a class-action suit in the U.S. and Canada, as the company is also sold to shareholders in both countries and listed in Canada.  The money he spent on accountants, researchers, travel, administrative costs, etc, would have been more than enough to cover the costs of filing the suit, filing a complaint with the SEC, and then running the case until discovery and trial.  He would be paid on contingency and any future settlement.

 

He chose to put out an analyst report and short the company instead.  His choice but I think it's unethical...and no different than a long analyst putting out a report and buying stock or call options.  Cheers!

[S2S]

He chose to put out an analyst report and short the company instead.  His choice but I think it's unethical...and no different than a long analyst putting out a report and buying stock or call options. 

 

???

 

It's no different than Buffett/Berkowitz/Tilson/(insert name of your favorite money manager here) publicly disclosing the investment theses of their holdings, be it in short form (media interviews) or in some details (presentations in investing conferences or the oft-leaked letters) either.

[Parsad]

It's no different than Buffett/Berkowitz/Tilson/(insert name of your favorite money manager here) publicly disclosing the investment theses of their holdings, be it in short form (media interviews) or in some details (presentations in investing conferences or the oft-leaked letters) either.

 

I don't know.  I think it's different when you have the word analyst in your name and you offer to write reports for other people for money.  Everyone knows where the money manager stands.  An analyst, not entirely unlike a journalist, is regarded as having an objective view on a subject with some sort of arms-length relationship to his/her report and compensation.  The line has become too blurred between analyst, journalist, newsletter writer, etc.  Cheers!

[S2S]

I don't know.  I think it's different when you have the word analyst in your name and you offer to write reports for other people for money.  Everyone knows where the money manager stands.  An analyst, not entirely unlike a journalist, is regarded as having an objective view on a subject with some sort of arms-length relationship to his/her report and compensation.  The line has become too blurred between analyst, journalist, newsletter writer, etc.  Cheers!

Sanjeev, the disclosure, a part of which I quote below, is on the front cover of MW report and featured prominently on its website as well. And pretty much everyone at this point knows that Block's outfit is a pseudo hedge fund rather than just a research provider.

 

You should assume that as of the publication date of any report, Muddy Waters, LLC (possibly along with or through our members, partners, affiliates, employees, and/or consultants) along with our clients and/or investors has a short position in the stock (and/or options of the stock) covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of stock declines.

 

I'd go so far to say than a great deal of forum posting here (and Yahoo! Finance,  SiliconInvestor etc etc) is done by members who have financial interests, one way or another, in the topic matters. I wouldn't personally expect every opinion to be objective or even 100% accurate (in other words, professional investors, Street analysts, Carson Block, investment hacks, fraudster all make mistakes at some point - it's part and parcel to putting one's opinion out in public).

[Guest Hester]

Just a note of interest to all those who put so much faith in Carson Block.

 

Do you just ignore the fact that Wellington has acquired 11.5% of this company. Do you really think they would do that if they believed this was a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme?

 

And now it has just been announced that Richard Chandler Corp has just purchased 10.9% of the company at about $4.06 per share.

 

So, going back to the credibility issue, who do you believe? These separate funds, who have jumped in with both feet and invested hundreds of millions of their own money or Carson Block?

 

It really is fascinating how you so vehemently base investment decisions on who is buying/selling the stock. How did Wellington's investment in China Biotics work out?

[Parsad]

I don't know.  I think it's different when you have the word analyst in your name and you offer to write reports for other people for money.  Everyone knows where the money manager stands.  An analyst, not entirely unlike a journalist, is regarded as having an objective view on a subject with some sort of arms-length relationship to his/her report and compensation.  The line has become too blurred between analyst, journalist, newsletter writer, etc.  Cheers!

Sanjeev, the disclosure, a part of which I quote below, is on the front cover of MW report and featured prominently on its website as well. And pretty much everyone at this point knows that Block's outfit is a pseudo hedge fund rather than just a research provider.

 

You should assume that as of the publication date of any report, Muddy Waters, LLC (possibly along with or through our members, partners, affiliates, employees, and/or consultants) along with our clients and/or investors has a short position in the stock (and/or options of the stock) covered herein, and therefore stands to realize significant gains in the event that the price of stock declines.

 

I'd go so far to say than a great deal of forum posting here (and Yahoo! Finance,  SiliconInvestor etc etc) is done by members who have financial interests, one way or another, in the topic matters. I wouldn't personally expect every opinion to be objective or even 100% accurate (in other words, professional investors, Street analysts, Carson Block, investment hacks, fraudster all make mistakes at some point - it's part and parcel to putting one's opinion out in public).

 

S2S, I know he discloses his position, but my point was in general these lines are becoming too blurred.  Too many people on CNBC touting stocks long and short...too many analysts/psuedo hedge fund managers...too many journalists/paid lobbyists.  Arms-length has become elbow-lengthed, and eventually that distinction will be completely undefinable.  Cheers!

[Guest Hester]

For the record I have no dog in this fight either, and I really don't have an opinion on Block, other than I respect his work, from what I've seen, although it's not perfect.

Also, nobody, not even block I think, is saying this is company 100% fraudulant. Obviously they have to have some trees some where. But with the debt, and the lawsuits that would ensue, some fraud and the stock is likely worth zero.

 

Tooskinee,

 

It's clear Block got the standing timber issue a little wrong. But when you sell timber, even standing timber, it eventually should be harvested. It's very unlikely that Sino sold that much standing timber to a party who would just sit on it for years. The trucks/loggers aren't there, and the processing facilities needed in the area don't exist. It doesn't prove fraud alone but it's very very suspicious. So we have a gigantic paper transaction between Sino and an unidentified buyer, and no forestry activity or facilities to speak of yet. How convenient.

[cwericb]

 

It really is fascinating how you so vehemently base investment decisions on who is buying/selling the stock.

 

 

Not at all. I am simply saying that we have two sides of this question and I feel that one side is simply more credible than the other.

 

On one side we have one individual (and MW consists of one person, Carson Block).  Block’s credentials are somewhat dubious and he has stated that Sino is a complete fraud and a multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme. By no stretch of the imagination is he an unbiased analyst. He is a self styled short seller who’s goal is to drive Sino’s share price down. Furthermore, he promised a release of further supporting evidence of his claims that he has never produced. For those reasons I think that, at the very least, he has overstated his case for his own gain and therefore I view his assessment of Sino with a lot of suspicion.

 

The other side is simply composed of two entities who have said nothing. But actions speak louder than words. One has just purchased 11% of the company and the other has increased its holdings to a similar level. Now if they believed Blocks assessment of Sino, would they have done that? They have the ability to have far more detailed research into Sino’s operations than I do and obviously they believe that Block’s report is wrong or at least vastly overstated.

 

 

[tooskinneejs]

Hester said: "Block got the standing timber issue a little wrong."

 

Hester also said: "I respect [block's] work, from what I've seen."

 

I would expect someone "without a dog in this fight" to have no problem admitting that Block got this issue completely wrong. I also find your two statements above to be at odds with each other.  Incorrect work is respectable to you?

 

Finally, I note that you didn't share your thoughts on Block's failure to retract and apologize for "erring" on this key claim (which may be a more troubling issue than the original "error" itself).  I anxiously await your response.

 

 

[Rabbitisrich]

Cwericb, what is your source regarding Sino-forest's cancellation of the analyst tour? I didn't even know that the company claimed that the analysts requested the postponement until your message, and then I couldn't find any supporting stories until I googled "Sino-forest tour postponement analyst request". That search yielded a Globe and Mail article that cited an anonymous analyst and Stephen Atkinson of BMO Nesbitt Burns, both of whom said that the trip would have yielded no new information without the PWC audit.

 

And yet, on the June 14 call, Richard Kelertas of Dundee Capital Markets requested an introduction to one of the AIs, presumably for verification scuttlebutt. The tour would have been more significant than a stroll through some woods. Six days later, he stopped coverage. If you are correct, and the analysts requested the postponement, then it changes the character of the delay. Why wouldn't the analysts, especially those with a bullish price target, have come forward? Why did one of two analysts interviewed speak to the Globe and Mail under condition of anonymity?

 

I admit to not fully understanding the company's response to the Globe and Mail expose. Apparently, Gengma Forestry's Chairman neglected to count sales of timberland in which his company acted as the selling agent. That seems like a huge communication mistake, if true. Also, I am not savvy with Chinese regulations concerning ownership verification. TRE claims that tree purchase agreements fall under local, rather than provincial, forestry bureaus and that the ownership transfer certificates are not communicated between local and provincial branches. What confuses me is that the master agreement provides for "pre-emptive" rights to lease the land, SUBJECT to governmental approval, which in this case includes the provincial forestry bureau. If, under such terms, the company can purchase trees without registering at the provincial level, then what does "pre-emptive" mean exactly?

 

I have no position in TRE, but the Block supporters vs. rationalist argument is little more than a straw man. Can you quote anyone who is arguing the short position using Block's authority standing?

[cwericb]

Rabbitisrich

 

It was a couple of weeks ago and may have been in the Globe & Mail but I am not sure. I believe that the reasoning behind this was that some of the analysts felt it would be premature to make the tour before the PWC report was released. Given the fact that PWC are doing an investigation into the company one might think that Sino’s hands may be tied until the report is released. Since their whole business has been called a fraud, until the independant report is produced I doubt analysts would trust anything Sino says at this point.

 

As far as analysts dropping coverage, are they dropping/stopping coverage or are they just suspending coverage until the PWC report comes in so that they know the results. I’m sure analysts would be reluctant to express any opinions until they know if Block’s report holds water - muddy or not.

 

There is some good information on the SEDAR site and the Gengma situation is explained there. See “other” and "News release - English", both June 20.  http://www.sedar.com/DisplayCompanyDocuments.do?lang=EN&issuerNo=00001894

 

 

[cwericb]

"Can you quote anyone who is arguing the short position using Block's authority standing?"

No, I don’t know if anyone has. I am just surprised that people have been so quick to jump to the conclusion that Block’s report is completely legitimate. And when someone expresses the opinion that this debate has no place on a value investors board I keep wondering... suppose Block's report is shown to be mostly inaccurate and and exaggerated? Would people have just missed an excellent oportunity?

[Guest Hester]

cwericb,

 

Look, I don't care if Kim Jong-il put out the report. All that matters is what's in the report. You can argue about credentials of whose buying and selling the stock all you want. I just don't care.

 

But out of curiousity, I googled Wellington and Chinese RTO's to see their history with them, and what, if anything they've owned. What came up was a venerable who's who list of blatant Chinese frauds.

 

Jiangbo Pharmaceuticals:

Wellington owns 5% of the company. Their stock has been halted since May.

 

Yuhe International:

They own 3.7% of the company. Stock has been halted for over a month.

 

Puda Coal:

They own 2.2% of them. Stock has been halted since April! It's pretty obvious the CEO transferred the company from the shareholders to himself.

 

China Electric Motor:

They owned 3.6% of the company. Great news! Stock isn't halted. Bad news! It was halted, at about $3 per share. It is now delisted and trades for 32 cents per share.

 

China Biotics:

They hold an 8.2% stake. This was the grandaddy of them all. They were buying as the shorts were vocal and the stock was getting hit hard. Well the stock was eventually halted, the auditors quit, accused management of an elaborate financial falsification scheme. Long story short the stock went from 12 bucks in may to 1.60 now.

 

Wellington is better at finding frauds than Muddy Waters. The problem is, they go long them.

 

So to recap,

 

The Sino sellers:

MW: Has discovered numerous Chicom frauds, every short targeted before Sino trades lower than the price they hit after the reports.

Sell Side analysts: Called MW report a pile of crap. Many recieved fees from Sino. Were cited by you earlier as the bull case. Have since abandoned the stock.

John Paulson: Needs no introduction. Owned 12% of Sino. Sold everything.

 

The buyers:

Wellington: Has invested .00015% of AUM with Sino. Has gone 5 for 5 when it comes to hitting blatant frauds. Owns enough worthless Chinese paper to line the great wall.

 

Do you still want to keep making this lame appeal to authority? I suggest sell, and buy some FFH and BRK.

[Guest Hester]

Hester said: "Block got the standing timber issue a little wrong."

 

Hester also said: "I respect [block's] work, from what I've seen."

 

I would expect someone "without a dog in this fight" to have no problem admitting that Block got this issue completely wrong. I also find your two statements above to be at odds with each other.  Incorrect work is respectable to you?

 

Finally, I note that you didn't share your thoughts on Block's failure to retract and apologize for "erring" on this key claim (which may be a more troubling issue than the original "error" itself).  I anxiously await your response.

 

I don't believe Block got it totally wrong, as I think the processing facilities should exist in the area, the trucks/loggers should eventually come, and the entity who bought the timber should be identified. Until then this is a paper transaction with a gigantic tract of land that nobody plans to do anything with and that can't be identified. And this is a timber company. Give me a break. The fact that Block didn't clearly state that it was standing timber was a mistake, although he probably doesn't think so and hence the silence on the issue. But it doesn't take away from the fact that Block is mostly right on the issue (as opposed to being totally wrong). I guess he's human after all.

 

Yes I still respect his work, I've been reading since Rino. He's not perfect but he does a helluva lot more than just scream fire in a crowded theater, as some here have suggested. Maybe a better way of putting it is he screams fire in a crowded theator, whilst noting the smoke alarms going off, passing out fliers on how the temperature in certain rooms of the theater are 3 times the normal rate, and noting that the people sitting in the balcony seats are not usually getting burned alive.

 

Incidentally, I'm reading Confidence Game right now. The book on Bill Ackman and his MBIA short. During questioning by the SEC, he was confronted with a statement about Farmer Mac, that they were unable to sell MBS's to investors. This was incorrect, as they were and the public filings for them were there. Ackman just completely missed them and made the mistake of saying they didn't in the report. This for a guy who spent his extravagent South American vacation reading past filings. Mistakes happen.

[Valuehunter7]

 

This is the way the rest of world works does it not?  We have a legal system for a reason, correct?

 

Block could have filed a class-action suit in the U.S. and Canada, as the company is also sold to shareholders in both countries and listed in Canada ... He would be paid on contingency and any future settlement.

 

He chose to put out an analyst report and short the company instead.  His choice but I think it's unethical...and no different than a long analyst putting out a report and buying stock or call options.  Cheers!

 

Disagree completely on these points.

 

Block should SUE an entity he knows to be a fraud, and wait some indefinite period for said fraud to pay him a contingent settlement??

 

I'll confess to some sell-side experience, and state that I have a very strong preference for research in which the analyst has a clear self interest, ideally a long or short position in the subject at hand. Great research is rarely objective - few are willing to put in that amount of work for free, or for salary. Block's interests are readily grasped in the first instance, he's done some great work, and deserves the gains he's racked up, in my view.

[tooskinneejs]

Hester said: "Block is mostly right on the issue"

 

Block analyzed the reported revenue as if it were felled timber when it was a standing timber transaction.  Maybe I'm slow, but how does that sort of analysis = mostly right?  If he had made that "mistake" in a financial analysis course, he would have received an F on the test.  Looking forward to your response.

[cwericb]

I am sure that by now people are tired of my trying to make my position clear time after time. Unfortunately it seems to be beyond the comprehension of some here. For the record and for the last time:

 

1) At no time have I ever defended Sino

 

2) I have never said that Block’s report is completely false

 

3) I have never said that there is no fraud involved at Sino

 

4) I have cited numerous points of concern about Block’s background.

 

Look, I don't care if Kim Jong-il put out the report. All that matters is what's in the report. You can argue about credentials of whose buying and selling the stock all you want. I just don't care.

 

WOW!

 

Hester that is so wrong it barely deserves comment.  If Bernie Madoff wrote the report, would you make the same statement? If Sino put out a glowing report would you believe that? Consider the source. I am beginning to wonder - do you perhaps know Carson Block personally?

 

A report is no better than the person that wrote it. I have looked at a lot of things about Carson Block that has given me serious doubts about his credibility. Aside from the fact that he is by no stretch of the imagination an unbiased party, he has already seen a major part of his analysis embarrassingly discredited * and he has also retracted significantly from his original position**.

* Standing lumber issue

** From “a multi-billion Ponzi scheme” to “an overstatement of hundreds of million dollars”

 

I believe the PWC report will likely show some problems at Sino. I also think that there are probably a lot of public companies that could not undergo the microscope that PWC will put them under without some dirty laundry being exposed. However, I doubt those problems will destroy the company and I believe shares will have value.

 

Perhaps I was under the misapprehension that value investors looked for opportunities in companies that were out of favour for one reason or another. This may (or may not) be a classic case. Time will tell.

 

I suggest sell, and buy some FFH and BRK.

Until relative recently I had never held shares in TRE. I did, however, pick up a small amount under $3.00 - which look pretty good at this point. (And FYI I have owned FFH for years before you joined this board)

 

PS I have no intentions of getting into a pi**ing match with other board members her because I respect and learn a lot from them - even the ones I disagree with  :) .

 

[Guest Hester]

Hester said: "Block is mostly right on the issue"

 

Block analyzed the reported revenue as if it were felled timber when it was a standing timber transaction.  Maybe I'm slow, but how does that sort of analysis = mostly right?  If he had made that "mistake" in a financial analysis course, he would have received an F on the test.  Looking forward to your response.

 

Because the timber will eventually have to fall. The infrastructure doesn't exist in the area to support the forest being taken out. Block thought the timber would have to be taken out upon transaction, incorrectly. It will eventually have to be taken out though, if a buyer exists.

[Guest Hester]

lol, that comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I appreciate the quiet dropping of the Wellington issue, which was the bulk of my comment and the bulk of your last 5 comments. It's amazing what a 5 minute google search can do to your argument.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the importance of reading the substance of the report vs. finding out what parties the author of the report attended in college.

 

Good luck with your long.

 

WOW!

 

Hester that is so wrong it barely deserves comment.  If Bernie Madoff wrote the report, would you make the same statement? If Sino put out a glowing report would you believe that? Consider the source. I am beginning to wonder - do you perhaps know Carson Block personally?

 

A report is no better than the person that wrote it. I have looked at a lot of things about Carson Block that has given me serious doubts about his credibility. Aside from the fact that he is by no stretch of the imagination an unbiased party, he has already seen a major part of his analysis embarrassingly discredited * and he has also retracted significantly from his original position**.

* Standing lumber issue

** From “a multi-billion Ponzi scheme” to “an overstatement of hundreds of million dollars”

 

I believe the PWC report will likely show some problems at Sino. I also think that there are probably a lot of public companies that could not undergo the microscope that PWC will put them under without some dirty laundry being exposed. However, I doubt those problems will destroy the company and I believe shares will have value.

 

 

[cwericb]

but I appreciate the quiet dropping of the Wellington issue, which was the bulk of my comment and the bulk of your last 5 comments. It's amazing what a 5 minute google search can do to your argument.

 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the importance of reading the substance of the report vs. finding out what parties the author of the report attended in college.

 

 

:) Of the numerous previously posted questionable items about Block's background, education was by far the least important. But if you only read what you want to...

As far as Wellington's track record is concerned one might suspect that perhaps, just perhaps they have had some successes in the same period? then again Davis and Chandler are losers in your book as well? Here's an interesting little article that just came out:

http://community.nasdaq.com/News/2011-07/sinoforest-corp-adding-to-yesterdays-strong-showing-up-another-5-today-and-near-5-mark.aspx?storyid=86627