cwericb

"It's disgusting to see something that has fraud written all over it being touted over and over again on our board after good advice that the thread should be dropped." 1) With all due respect, who appointed you three or four guys to decide what threads are acceptable on this board. There has been three of four threads on TRE and this one alone has had over 13,000 views. Personally I would think members of this board are probably intelligent enough to decide which threads they read and which they do not. 2) You seem very sure of your position, what if you are wrong? 3) Aside from the MW report - why do you say TRE has fraud written all over it? What other information are you basing your stand on? 4) If you are relying on Carson Block for your information you might want to check out his background a little more closely. And you might note that even he has changed his accusations of fraud and Ponzi scheme to an “overstatement” - that’s quite a change. 5)Who has ever 'touted' TRE? If you are suggesting that I have than you have your information wrong. I stated some time ago that I wouldn’t be surprised if TRE was probably worth more than a couple of bucks. Its been at $6-7 for some time and, in fact, held up very well while everything else tanked. However, it could go either way and like every other share purchase it is a bit of a gamble. One of the biggest hurdles that TRE faces now is NOT the damage that fraud has done but the damage the ACCUSATIONS of fraud has done to the company and its ability to obtain financing. When people say things like TRE “has fraud written all over it’ when they really have no proof of that and they pronounce their opinion as being a fact, they become part of the problem. “I'm getting pretty sick of cwericb's bumps talking about how great his TRE bottom call has been.” I beg your pardon, but would you like to back that up? I have never once said anything about that and this is a reflection of some of the twisted comments that have appeared here. Today I simply posted some pertinent news regarding the Q2 results and the PWC report. As far as “bumps” are concerned I have only responded to some mis-information.

“How do you explain the satellite photos taken at the expense of one of our board members showing the phony Potempkin Village of what was supposed to be their main operations?” I don’t. I’m no expert on Sino nor do I profess to be, nor do I defend them nor make excuses for them. I simply think there is a very good chance that the company is worth more than $1-3 a share. If I am wrong I am probably in good company. Richard Chandler has paid an average of somewhere around $7 per share for nearly 20% of the company and may be seeking control. Even if there is major fraud, I would suspect that Chandler still sees this as a way to pick up this company at a bargain price. (Re Satellite photos - Are you sure that those photos were pertaining to TRE and not to ONP?) “They're one step ahead of me, no conference call.” There has been a number of suggestions like this that seem to be rather naive. It is like the twisted accusation that Sino cancelled the analysts tour because they had something to hide when it was the analysts who asked for the tour to be postponed. By the way I now see that it has been announced that the tour will be back on when the PWC report is issued, which seems to make sense to me. Did anyone seriously think for one minute that there would be a conference call? There is a pending lawsuit and a detailed audit being conducted by PWC surely mamagementy is in no position to be answering questions at this point and I would imagine that they were told to keep quiet. “Boy it takes a long time to review unfounded claims these days.” You wouldn’t have shorted this stock now would you?

"If a tree falls in a forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it count?" Only if it lands on Carson Block? :) I would think that almost any company of this size and as spread out as is TRE, doing business in a relatively undeveloped country like China, would likely have some 'dirty laundry'. Things are not done quite the way they over there as they are here. That should be expected. But when this all shakes out I would think that the company will essentially have passed the test but with two major improvements. Firstly, and unlike many companies - weather its in China or North America - investors will have an in depth PWC report to tell them exactly what is going on within that company. How many companies anywhere will have undergone that type of scrutiny? Secondly it will have Richard Chandler as major shareholder and not only does he know this area his track record is pretty good. If there was any kind of a Ponzi scheme I doubt they would be paying off loans. One would also suspect the quarterly report probably had PWC's blessings before it was released. So unless one believes that PWC and Ernst & Young were easily duped and that Wellington, Davis, and Chandler had a wish to throw away serious money, this company is going to be around for a while yet. Considering shares were $20-25 before the MW report and are now $7.00 solely due to the MW 'report', one would that even if there are some overstatements found that there is still upside potential. Just my opinion.

Sino repays $90 million dollar note : http://www.sinoforest.com/Uploads%5CPress%20release%20-%20repayment%20of%202011%20Notes%20%28FINAL%29.pdf And releases Q2 results and update on PWC report: http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/August2011/15/c3709.html No resignations, no suicides, no whistle blowers, loans being repaid, results being released and major share purchases by reputable buyers such as Chandler who now owns nearly 20%. TRE is presently over $7.00.

Smazz I have been using Firefox for the last couple of years with no problem. I also use RBC direct and it works fine for me.

"Where's the home key on my iPad? LOL. Apple is causing me finagle-flicking carpel-tunnel-digit syndrom" Haha, that's why I thought a Top of Page button might be helpful since there are so many variables with so many different divices. Hope you recover soon....

Re Top of Page Button Thanks guys - Function and Escape keys aparently will do that on my netbook. I have 3 computers and each seems to have different shortcut keys.

Small point. How about a button at the bottom of each page to return to the top of the page?

That worked easy! For those of us who don't have Paypal it accepts Visa, Mastercard, etc. I agree that there should be something larger than that little button because I never would have seen it if I hadn't been looking.

You're the boss, but don't undervalue what this board means to the members. If you ever need to hire a temp or need equipment just let us know and I would think that we could come up with whatever was needed. EricB

Regarding the fee discouraging new members, I really don't think $25 a year would be too much of a deturrant and as tnp20 said, a 3 month free trial period should resolve this. But I am sure that Sanjeev could use the fees to make the board even better and more reliable. I just think that we gain a lot from having him manage the board and we don't contribute even a small token of our appreciation.

"I would pay the membership fee, no problem. What I worry about is that closed forums tend to stop attracting new members because with most forums, you have to be part of a community for a while before you realize how valuable it is, so few people would be ready to pay just to join." I thought about this, so what about a 30 day free period or you could read but could not post until the fee was paid?

Thank you guys very much. What a time for the site to go down! I'm sure we all can appreciate that you were busy with other matters and then had to take time out to try to bring the site back up. QUESTION for the board: It has been some time since a membership fee was brought up. Perhape we should start a pole on this, but a nominal fee - say $25 or so - for a yearly membership would help compensate Sanjeev for his work, allow him to hire techs when things like this happen and it also would help screen out people who were not really serious or those who have their own adgenda that was not in keeping with the spirit of the board. For me, $25 or $50 would be a very small price to pay for access to this board. I value this board and board members contributions far more than any yearly fee. What do others feel?

"Sooner or later Joe six wont invest in the markets." You hit the nail on the head there and that's one of the things that concerns me. If markets keep beating up the little guy and the media keep sensationalizing market losses (and rarely mention gains) than the those small investors are going to get gunshy and look for safer, more predictable investments. If they stay away from the markets it will at best delay recovery and at worst depress overall demand, ie prices, for shares.

Man its hard watching all those gains just evaporate like that and I agree that before long we are going to see a thin bounce, but I doubt that the 'buying opportunities" are over. However I hope ericopoly is right. I wonder if todays action was really because of the downgrade or simply a continuation of the concerns over the general debt problems in Europe and the US? I know that the sensationalism of the news coverage certainly hasn't helped because its certainly scaring the small investors out there. I would suspect that the markets might stabalize a lot quicker if something more newsworthy comes around.

"I have 10% cash and wont buy until it settles down." I agree with this (I just wish I had the 10% cash). But does anyone think that these prices are going to bounce back up right away? I hope I am wrong, but I would be very surprised to see a rebound in prices anytime soon. These plunges tend to feed upon themselves until they exhaust the market so I would be inclined to wait for a while before I buy anything. Just because something dropped 20% in the last week or so doesn't mean that it won't drop another 10-20% over the next year/month/week. Does anyone relly think that we are at or near the bottom here and the drop is over?

Munger, with all due respect there is really no such thing as unsecured loans (assets). Some loans are secured by physical property others by a signature. As per my previous example, would you rather have the doctor's loan on your books or the teenager's? Am I wrong that you are making the assumption that at some point all unsecured loans will default? In actual fact I would not be surprised if the default ratio on unsecured loans was actually lower than that of secured loans.

Re unsecured credit. Okay, quick reality check. I have worked in various aspects of the credit field for a long time, so here are some things you shouldn't overlook. 1) If you have ever tried to get an unsecured loan you will know that: a) Banks just don't give away money b) Banks get a higher interest rate on unsecured loans c) Those who qualify for an unsecured loan are much more financially secure than those who's loans have to be secured. 2) Secured loans are often little safer than unsecured loans. If someone defaults and the security is repossesed several factors come into play: a) The security has often depreciated to the point where it has little value b) The costs of repossession, storage, advertising and sale usually often eat up much of the value of the security. c) In my experience I have often seen banks over estimate the value of the security so the banker can write the paper. d) Most repossessions sell for a severly depreciated value - at the best of times. e) In a seriously depressed market there are few buyers for the security. I have seen times when all sorts of property has been repossesed and had to be maintained by the bank or repossers to the point where it actually cost more than the equity was worth. In the example I used previously: Which would you rather have a) $10,000 line of credit to a doctor secured only by his signature or b) a loan to a teenager for a 5 year old mustang?

Munger you are making suppositions that are not correct. Much of that unsecured credit would involves line of credit to individuals who are relatively secure in their finances. As for being no recourse, again that is also not quite correct. If you are under that illusion, try defaulting on an unsecured loan and see what happens. Also, no secured or unsecured portfolio of loans is 100% collectable. However to suggest that unsecured loans are uncollectable is simply incorrect. Yes, in times of stress the loss rate will increase on both types, but do not overlook the fact that in times of stress the security taken on loans often has little value.

Hey Josh4580, you get what you pay for :)

Sorry Munger, it seems that you probably have no experience with unsecured lending and have difficulty in grasping the concept. While no one said it should be valued at the same rate as secured credit, I can assure you that it is a long way from "complete air". If you actually feel that unsecured credit is essentially unrecoverable I would strongly advise you to keep that opinion to yourself the next time you speak to your banker about a line of credit.

"Unsecured lending is complete air." As someone who deals daily with unsecured lending your comment really is complete hot air.

“The asset behind unsecured lending is complete air.” Sorry but I have trouble letting that pass without comment. Unsecured credit may be less of an asset on a percentage of the credit written as compared to secured credit. However the lending criteria imposes higher requirements on the unsecured borrower. In other words the borrower must have a greater ability to pay than with a secured loan. For example, I would rather have a doctor owe me $10,000 unsecured than the kid out of school who borrows $10,000 to buy a second hand car. Dismissing unsecured loans is to overlook the higher borrowing standards as well as the fact that there are legal means to recover defaults.

Thanks for your thoughts Viking. If it were not for China/Asia I would be very pessimistic. There is an interesting interview with Peter Munk (Barrick Gold) in MacLean’s magazine on mining where he says... “I believe that it is inevitable that over the next two decades those 300 to 400 million Chinese who live in the same homesteads and same conditions as their grandparents on $3 a week, unless those guys are given a chance to either emigrate to cities—which is impossible because the cities are all overloaded—so the only alternative to keep them gainfully employed and give them a chance to improve is to move industry in there. Every factory needs power. The moment you have power, you need roads, you need railroads, you need proper transportation to take the raw material to them and take the finished goods away. The amount of infrastructure needed just in power generation and distribution is equal to the whole wiring system of the U.S., which is copper. To build buildings for the factories requires steel, to build roads you require cement, and all that needs energy, which is coal. So if you add it up, whether it’s zinc or lead or rare earth or agricultural potash to feed them, it’s all mining.” http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/07/27/on-immigrant-dreams-the-importance-of-failure-and-why-the-future-belongs-to-canada/ Regarding BRK, I have been satisfied with FFH but I think that I may have to look closer at BRK.

"not following politics, or economics hasn't negatively impacted many people's lives" Is that not perhaps the problem? Apathy towards government is why we get the government we deserve. Then again, I don't have much faith in the average voter who will vote for whatever politician will promise them the most despite the long range cost.