cwericb

oec2000 It comes down to who you feel is more reliable or reputable Muddy Waters or say, RBC. Now RBC, Dundee, etc could be wrong but I would have a lot more faith in their analysts than I would have in Mr. Block. If really believe that MW's reports are more likely to be correct, knowing that they have mislead people before and knowing that they have a vested interest in destroying TRE, than I simply have to disagree. I think the odds - no guarantee - but the odds of accuracy are in RBC's favour. IMHO.

"They go after the messenger instead of the message" But if you can't trust the messenger....

Glad to see we are not taking ourselves too seriously. I tend to agree with libor.plus1. I think (hope?) that the current slide has been a factor of the time of year, the after effects of the quake in Japan, markets getting a little ahead of themselves, and a general lack of positive news. I am hoping to see better figures next month and then an upturn in the Fall. I sometimes get very pessimistic about the long term, but I temper those thoughts with the realization that Asia is capable of such a huge demand. When you unleash a century's pent up demand over just a few years - by half the world's population - that is a driving force that may well balance out a lot of problems. I remember seeing pictures of those huge multi-lane highways in China taken 20-30 years ago and marveling that there was almost no cars or trucks on those roads. I see pictures of the same roads today that are gridlocked with bumper to bumper traffic and yet less than 10% of the population owns vehicles. The demand for all things will be staggering.

The beginning of the end of this controversy? http://business.financialpost.com/2011/06/07/muddy-waters-sino-forest-research-pile-of-crap-dundee/#more-60753

And just one more quote from that article................. "Furthermore, Mr. Kelertas claimed that this isn’t the first time that Muddy Waters has acted dubiously. He said a researcher with the short seller told management at Orient Paper Corp., the first Chinese company targeted by the short seller back in 2010, that he would write a research report for them in return for US$300,000. Mr. Kelertas said Orient Paper declined the offer and two months later, Muddy Waters issued their initial report calling the company a fraud. Mr. Kelertas pointed out that since then, Orient Paper has refuted every single claim, while Deloitte & Touche, hired as independent auditors found Muddy Waters guilty of using false information." Yup, Mr. Block seems like a fine upstanding guy to me. So Dundee still has faith in TRE, are they alone? No "RBC Capital Markets analyst Paul Quinn also came out in favour of the company, maintaining an Outperform rating on the stock" So who do you believe? The guy with no address or RBC, Dundee, Paulson? As someone said back a while ago, "if Block is right some heads are going to roll" Of course, right or wrong, Block probably made millions.

Interesting comment from a respectable organization: “We are going to provide you with some information on why Muddy Waters research is a pile of crap,” said Richard Kelertas, an analyst at Dundee Capital Markets, during a conference call he held with clients on Tuesday afternoon. “We believe there’s nothing true in that report.” Yet some on this board would choose to believe some guy living in China who will not give his address because of death threats and who stands to make a killing as TRE’s stock price goes down? Anyone who defends the Block report or and his associates should read the following: http://business.financialpost.com/2011/06/07/muddy-waters-sino-forest-research-pile-of-crap-dundee/#more-60753

Seems to me that somewhere during this whole discussion some board members have become polarized in their views. I don't think that anyone said that the MW report was wrong or simply made up as a tool for shorts. I don't think anyone said that all Chinese stocks were great investments. I think that the point most were trying to make is that we are surprised that investors would immediately accept this report at face value. Obviously a lot did, look at the huge drop in share price. I think the point was, just hold on a minute, don't accept this report as gospel because we have seen examples in the past where some extreme reports like this have been fabricated in an attempt to manipulate stock prices. You talk about hyperbole, how many times does Block use the term "fraud" in his report. Somehow I can't see RBC or TD using words like that in a research report. Bottom line - just because some guy wrote a report that accuses TRE of being a fraud does not make it necessarily true. It may be, but time will tell. It is much easier to make accusations than it is to defend your self when something like this comes right out of the blue. And yes there is hyperbole in some of the comments, but if you were to actually research the details of the Fairfax story you would see that events took place that were so extreme that they seemed to have come from a cheap spy novel and an example of hyperbole itself. Those familiar with that story have good reason to be cautious about accepting a report like this at face value. Carl: Yes. I was simply trying to make the point that just because FFH or a similar company survived, didn't mean that a lot of investors didn't get hurt. If I had bought TRE at $18 last week and had to sell this week for $5 I wouldn't be a happy camper especially if I later found that report to have been wrong and created to try to destroy the company. If the company later recovered it wouldn't help me much. However the reality is that I bought a few shares in the $3.90's a couple of days ago and so far, so good.

given2invest “I don't know the specifics of FFH, but I do know how people on this site use incredible hyperbole when discussing shorts whether it's Steve Cohen or a seeking alpha report on EBIX” I am not being sarcastic here but you should do some research on FFH’s past history before you make a statement like that. Yes, perhaps some people here can get a bit paranoid at times, but then again, if you look at past history they have good reason. FFH is not sueing Mr Cohen and his buddies for $6B because they like to support law firms. “the price of the stock being in the "hundreds", the price of a stock is irrelevant, that can be manipulated via reverse splits (see BH). No reason to make a claim that because a company trades over $100 a share it's any more legitimate than one that trades at $10 a share.” Sorry, either you missed my point or I didn’t explain myself well. The share price is not irrelevant if you owned several hundred shares of FFH at $500 a share in 1999 and after a concentrated short attack by certain individuals who FALSELY and INTENTIONALLY caused the share price to be cut in half within a few months and drove it down to below $75 a share a year or so later in their attempt to drive the company out of business. So now you have just lost $425 on each of those several hundred shares you own. In other words you are effectively pretty well wiped out and have to get out while you still have a few dollars left. The point is that you have just lost most of your hard earned money. The fact that the company survived is small comfort to you, the individual shareholder.

"Aha! But Fairfax didn't go bankrupt did it? Investors stepped in and saved them because they viewed the reports as inaccurate. That's exactly my point." Yeah, after a lot of people lost a lot of money. Jeez sometimes it's hard to keep quiet when I see things like this. Look, you own a stock that sells for several hundred bucks a share (as much as 5 or $6oo if I remember correctly) Then you get a bunch of shady characters who decide they are going to make a lot of money by spreading flat out lies about the company and it's owner and intentionally mislead people to drive the stock down below a hundred bucks a share and you say, no big deal they didn't go bankrupt did they. What about those shareholders who lost 75% or more of the value of their holdings inFFH and had to sell because of margin calls or because they just couldn't hang on any longer? What about the loss of faith that the markets had in FFH, what about the difficulties this presented them in borrowing and the extra costs associated. I could go on but there is just no way anyone can even attempt to justify those actions. To say that just because the company didn't go bankrupt doesn't mean that a lot of innocent investors didn't get hurt very badly. MW's research may or may not be right on TRE, but if it is not I would bet that there are a lot of investors out there who would like to be locked in a room with Mr. Block for five minutes. In Fairfax's case the information spread about it was wrong - intentionally - and a lot of people were hurt.

Hey all. This is a great discussion. Everyone has their own opinions on this subject and it certainly it is not black or white. But just from voicing the pros and cons here hopefully we are all learning a bit and it doesn’t hurt to look at how we factor risk into our decisions. Sometimes risk can be reasonably accurately be calculated, sometimes not. In this case I don’t think the risk can be calculated very accurately. Is that a reason not to get involved? For some yes, others, no. We don’t really know much about MW on one side and since they have put TRE’s numbers in doubt, we don’t know much about that either. However. The bottom line here is that I don’t think any one is going to bet the farm on TRE, but given the past long history of TRE and virtually no history of MW I tend to think that, while there may be some truth to MW’s claims, I believe that TRE may still be around when the dust settles so for less than $4 I picked up a few shares. Now those shares may not be worth anything in a month or so, and if so, c’est la vie. Then again they could be worth several times that $4. So I and some others are willing to take a small gamble on that. I think what some may be missing here is scale. I doubt anyone here is loading up on TRE, but a little side bet here will be interesting to watch.

alertmeipp - Exactly. Also I find it a bit ironic that there so many people on this board who seem to be so risk adverse. Who is more involved in risk than insurance companies and investors. Some of those companies alertmeipp mentions didn't look so great a couple of years ago. -------------------------------- "It's hard to swallow that Sino has been public for 8 years and could be a fraud the whole time..it is sure smelling like that" If it is a fraud, it just goes to show that numbers can't always be trusted. I wonder how many of the people here who are so against high risk would have seen TRE differently a few years ago.

"I also think we all know very many more people who went broke who at one time or other made some very high risk investments." It is interesting that you should bring this up. I never cease to be amazed at the number of successful buisnessmen I know who either went broke or nearly did so at some point early in their career. I also know a number of very bright people who were not very sucessful in business because they were too conservative and risk adverse.

"Is that how Buffett or Watsa would think about an investment?" I'm no expert on either one but I know very few, if any, buisnessmen who at one time or another didn't make some high risk investments and I doubt Watsa and Buffett are exceptions.

"it seems to me this is not a 50:50 bet" No, it is not. The downside is the loss of $4 a share. The upside may well be $10-20 per share or more. As far as working out the numbers on TRE is concerned, I don't know how anyone can do that with any certainty when the numbers themselves are being questioned. As I said before, this is more of a gamble than an investment. Many people buy lottery tickets. I like the odds better here. I hope no one bets the grocery money on this, but I think my chances are just as good or better here than dropping a few dollars at the local casino. Time will tell, but if this drops back a little more tomorrow I might find some more loose change. Just because there are some very good investors on this site doesn't mean that some can't take the odd gamble now and again. Anyone who invests in the market is a gambeler to a certain extent, it is just a matter of degree. I know of no stock that is 100% assured to increase in value. Sometimes there is nothing wrong with taking the ocassional longshot.

SFValue. "permanent" is a bit strong, but just the accusations and doubt would tarnish their reputation for quite some time to come.

Question. Given that there has been a huge number of shares traded over the past few days, would anyone care to speculate as to who has been buying?

At this point TRE is pretty much a gamble. It is quite entertaining as it can bounce up or down 10-20% in minutes. I like the odds here and have been picking up a little as it drops below $4.00. Maybe it's a poor investment and perhaps a lot of people wouldn't touch it today - but you know, there was a buyer for every one of those 27,000,000 shares that changed hands today - so I think that there are more people than ValueBuff and I that are buying.

From the May 19 CP story: "Chief executive Pierre Gabriel Cote said his company is also interested in making tissue paper but wouldn't say if Fibrek is interested in buying five plants that Cascades (TSX:CAS) has just put up for sale." If he was not giving some thought to this wouldn't he have just said "no"?

FIBREK AND THE SAINT-FÉLICIEN MILL EMPLOYEE UNION SIGN NEW COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT LONGUEUIL,QC, May 25, 2011 /CNW Telbec/ - Mr. Pierre Gabriel Côté, President and CEO of Fibrek, is pleased to announce that the members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP, local 24-Q) have voted in favour of a new collective bargaining agreement based on the agreement in principle concluded last April 29. The new labour conditions are retroactive to May 1, 2009 and will be effective until April 30, 2014. "This agreement is the result of a long process. The negotiations unfolded in a climate of respect, cooperation and transparency that reflects our corporate values. I applaud the openness and pragmatism shown by the union representatives throughout the negotiations. Together, we concluded an agreement that meets both parties' needs", said Mr. Côté. The agreement contains several measures to improve the mill's productivity. The parties will work closely to implement the agreed-upon terms and conditions, in particular to achieve greater flexibility in the maintenance department, to reorganize the workforce and to improve employee training and development. "After successfully completing this process, I believe that Fibrek is now stronger and better positionned to face its challenges. I thank and congratulate both negotiating teams for their hard work and constructive discussions leading to this agreement. It takes into account the particular context of our industry and sets the foundations to continue building a successful, competitive and sustainable organization", concluded Mr. Côté.

I don't know if everyone gets the same ads running at the bottom of these pages, but it is more than a little ironic that an Amex ad has been running at the bottom of my page on this thread telling people that they can accumulate Aeroplan points if they apply for an Amex card.

"There are 100 different ways to work the system" At one time Visa sent me out 5 "Visa Cheques" that worked similar to cash advances. However as opposed to cash advances, they allowed one Aeroplan (Air Canada) point for each dollar amount of the cheques. I had just sold a property and was in the process of transferring $35,000. However, I first wrote out 5 - $7,000 cheques to my wife and collected 35,000 points. To put this in perspective 25,000 points will get a return ticket anywhere in North America. And that was not the first time I had done that with similar cheque offers, I haven't received any of those offers since.

"I would bet a decent chunk of people would end up paying high rates. " It's like the "6 months interest free" or "12 month interest free" gimmicks you see promoted by retailers. If you are a day late or a dollar short, you pay the full interest calculated from the day you purchased the goods, usually at 29%. So the poor slob who can't quite come up with his total payment on the final day now owes 15 or 30% more than he did the day before. "Credit card companies business model does not work on the subset of people who are very knowledgeable in finance and are disciplined like you." I use Aerogold Visa and acquire Aeroplan points with it and put almost everything through it. All regular purchases, my heating bill, car and house insurance, vehicle registrations and sales taxes on vehicles, etc, etc. I get all my bills on one statement and the card gets paid in full at the end of every month. I have flown with family from the East Coast to California, Arizona, Hawaii and multiple times over the years on the accumulated points. Most recently business/first class to Hawaii. However Aeroplan recently announced that they are raising the points requirements by as much as 30% so I am in the process of re-thinking this card.

Like Liberty, I find that the site normally loads quickly, but a few days ago I found that there were several times when this site loaded very slowly or not at all. All other sites loaded normally except this one so I don't think this was a local problem. But compared to what things were like a few years ago the site runs much better. On a similar subject, about a year or so ago there were a lot of negative remarks made about a certain Mr. B and his business ethics, or lack thereof. Coincidently this site went down for a day or so at the same time. I also acquired a very bad virus that I am 99.9% sure came from this site at that exact same time as the site was experiencing difficulties. Now to be clear, I don't blame anyone here for that, but I have often wondered if the reason why the site crashed was ever determined? I mean, it didn't just crash for no reason and the timing was rather coincidental.

Bookie you are quite correct in that 29%+ Another thing that differs from most retail credit is that if you charged $2500 this month and pay only $2000 before the due date, than you will be charged interest on the $500 remaining. But with a credit card you may pay interest on all the charges that make up the full $2500 from the day you charged them until the end of the month of the charges. (unless policies have changed in the past few years) I also find it surprising that a lot of people do not realize that most retailers are charged approximately 2-5% of every charge processed by a bank charge card. However, the real cost to the retailer is actually higher because the charge includes 15% or sales tax. The retailer must submit 100% of the sales tax to government even though they only receive 95-98% of that money from the bank. One place where this all gets very substantial is in the building supply industry where people run up six figure accounts and then demand to pay with their credit card. One swipe of the card can cost the retailer several thousand dollars.

Is it just me or do these natural disasters seem to be strengthening? Earthquakes - how often do you hear of quakes in the 9 range? Tornados a mile wide and staying on the ground for 10 minutes - in a city? I do know that here on the East coast we are definitely seeing a change it the extremes of our weather, especially wind speeds and the frequency of high winds. This year's hurricane season may be quite unpleasant. Of course, now that the end of the world has been postponed until October perhaps it's no big deal. In all seriousness though, I don't see how insurance rates cannot start to rise.