Guest Hester Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Muddy waters is trying to use the SAIC to determine fraud at TRE. Here is an interesting article from February that explains why this is not possible based on how businesses need to be structured in China. http://weybenjamin.wordpress.com/2011/02/18/benjamin-wey-a-china-experts-views-on-saic-and-sec-filing-discrepancies-for-u-s-based-companies/ This article has been refuted mutiple times. There are two classes of companies, VIE's and FIE's. FIE's are audited in China and extremely unlikely to have incorrect SAIC documents. It's law, SAIC will equal SAT filings. VIE's are a little murkier but are still likely to have correct SAIC's and really have little reason not to. If a company has different SAIC filings because of unconsolidated subsidiaries, then those subs should have filings, that when added to the parent's SAIC filings should equal SEC filings. Therefore, the investor just has to find the sub's SAIC's and prove they match. This doesn't happen for reasons that are obvious. Every Chinese firm that has blown up has had widely divergent SAIC-SEC filings. And every one that has blown up has been over SEC accounting. There have been no SAIC filing accounting frauds. Everytime management has said that it had accounting problems, it has been about SEC documents not SAIC. If you look at companies dual listed in Hong Kong and America, virtually none of them have SAIC/SEC filing mismatches. Almost all Chicom reverse mergers have these mismatches. If the filings shouldn't match, why is it that the companies who actually have to answer to the law if they commit fraud all have matching filings, and the companies to which there is no legal recourse if fraud occurs all have mismatching filings? hmmmmmm... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Well, at least TRE has been spending the capital and has been negative FCF. That's actually a positive the way I look at it. CCME (and others) raised round after round at absurdly low valuations while generating copious amounts of FCF. Most importantly, they had no capital needs! They weren't spending money on any cap ex! I completely agree. CCME, and really many Chinese reverse mergers, are more obvious frauds becuase they have almost no capital spending needs, huge cash balances, very profitable (supposedly), and yet they sell equity. At single digit p/e's nontheless. That just makes absolutely zero sense. Give me a random Chicom reverse merger and there is probably a 70-80% chance that all those characteristics I just mentioned apply to them. The whole space is just infested with red flags. But at least TRE had reasons to sell equity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueBuff Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I think the above is well said. Nobody would add a full (new) position of TRE here (imo anyway) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coc Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 ...He doesn't like convoluted financial statements. Even when Enron was soaring, Mr. Lampert said, he was not interested. ''Complex financials don't necessarily mean there is something wrong,'' he said. ''But if you don't have a clue, why invest?'' -NYT 2002 "Big Returns, Minus the Pleasantries" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 Honestly some of you guys are acting like this is the only game in town. There are probably 20,000 other securities. My advice get to rebutting the report or move on. Its a gamble for sure, but is it mispriced? Charlie Munger - We look for a horse with one chance in two of winning and which pays you three to one. Charlie Munger - You’re looking for a mispriced gamble. That’s what investing is. And you have to know enough to know whether the gamble is mispriced. That’s value investing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cwericb Posted June 9, 2011 Share Posted June 9, 2011 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedevil Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 The Globe and Mail published an exclusive today on discrepancies with Sino Forest that it has uncovered. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/key-partner-casts-doubt-on-sino-forest-claim/article2066110/page1/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finetrader Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Globe and Mail IS a credible source! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2S Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Globe and Mail IS a credible source! But the writer is not a bulge bracket analyst! Kidding aside, this weekend's Barron's did a nice piece on how amid the epidemic fraud that is Chinese RTOs, even the shorts (the oft-demonized profiteers who do all the hard work) can lose out as trading gets halted. http://online.barrons.com/article/SB50001424053111904113704576383892664177456.html?mod=BOL_hps_mag TRE wasn't included as the situation is still unfolding before our eyes, but it's an impressive laundry list (table copied and pasted below). As always, remember to read the small print, or you'll miss the punchline. ;) http://i53.tinypic.com/2najk1t.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Did anyone catch this: Paulson dumped entire stake in Sino Forest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/paulson-dumps-its-entire-sino-forest-position/article2068199/ Could be retitled: Another Guru's Reputation Bites the Dust. I have about had my fill of so called market gurus. The vast majority are no better than anyone on this board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Did anyone catch this: Paulson dumped entire stake in Sino Forest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/paulson-dumps-its-entire-sino-forest-position/article2068199/ Could be retitled: Another Guru's Reputation Bites the Dust. I have about had my fill of so called market gurus. The vast majority are no better than anyone on this board. It's also astonishing to see otherwise rational members of this board arguing that Chinese companies listed offshore in Canada and the US should be presumed innocent of fraud until proven guilty. Imagine that 50 companies are known to be controlled by the mafia, but only 10 have been proven to be frauds. Would anyone seriously believe the others are not likely to follow the same fate through their common denominator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Did anyone catch this: Paulson dumped entire stake in Sino Forest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/paulson-dumps-its-entire-sino-forest-position/article2068199/ Could be retitled: Another Guru's Reputation Bites the Dust. I have about had my fill of so called market gurus. The vast majority are no better than anyone on this board. Just days after management reported he was "supportive." I mostly agree that most market gurus are charlatans, or at least not as great as everyone thinks. When the fame and fortune was attained through one or two events (like betting against subprime) as opposed to a lifetime of good investing decisions, the "guru" status is even more questionable, no matter how well thought out the one mega trade was. This doesn't mean Paulson is not a very good investor, we all have our mistakes, but this cements the fact that comparisons of him to greats like Buffett are patently ridiculous. Buffett would of never gotten caught up in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 I wonder what price he got. It's too bad that even with his resources, he can't confirm whether he is dupped or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Did anyone catch this: Paulson dumped entire stake in Sino Forest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/paulson-dumps-its-entire-sino-forest-position/article2068199/ Could be retitled: Another Guru's Reputation Bites the Dust. I have about had my fill of so called market gurus. The vast majority are no better than anyone on this board. Just days after management reported he was "supportive." I mostly agree that most market gurus are charlatans, or at least not as great as everyone thinks. When the fame and fortune was attained through one or two events (like betting against subprime) as opposed to a lifetime of good investing decisions, the "guru" status is even more questionable, no matter how well thought out the one mega trade was. This doesn't mean Paulson is not a very good investor, we all have our mistakes, but this cements the fact that comparisons of him to greats like Buffett are patently ridiculous. Buffett would of never gotten caught up in this. What about Gen Re? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keerthiprasad Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Did anyone catch this: Paulson dumped entire stake in Sino Forest: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/streetwise/paulson-dumps-its-entire-sino-forest-position/article2068199/ Could be retitled: Another Guru's Reputation Bites the Dust. I have about had my fill of so called market gurus. The vast majority are no better than anyone on this board. Just days after management reported he was "supportive." I mostly agree that most market gurus are charlatans, or at least not as great as everyone thinks. When the fame and fortune was attained through one or two events (like betting against subprime) as opposed to a lifetime of good investing decisions, the "guru" status is even more questionable, no matter how well thought out the one mega trade was. This doesn't mean Paulson is not a very good investor, we all have our mistakes, but this cements the fact that comparisons of him to greats like Buffett are patently ridiculous. Buffett would of never gotten caught up in this. What about Gen Re? Or Salomon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 21, 2011 Author Share Posted June 21, 2011 it's okay to make mistake - just don't let a mistake kills you. that's why risk risk risk should be the focus always. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 But Buffett didn't lose any money on them! Sure Soloman cost precious time and some reputation, but he ended up making billions. Besides, those were mostly smaller employee misdealings (Soloman had impropriety at the top, but this was do to misreaction to an event), rather than massive largescale fraud perpetrated from the top, with the sole aim of stealing from investors. Most large companies Buffett owns have had some problems of this nature, you can add in Goldman and GE. Sino is hardly analogous. I don't think Buffett's ever permanently lost money on investment due to fraud. What about Gen Re?... Or Salomon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twacowfca Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 But Buffett didn't lose any money on them! Sure Soloman cost precious time and some reputation, but he ended up making billions. Besides, those were mostly smaller employee misdealings (Soloman had impropriety at the top, but this was do to misreaction to an event), rather than massive largescale fraud perpetrated from the top, with the sole aim of stealing from investors. Most large companies Buffett owns have had some problems of this nature, you can add in Goldman and GE. Sino is hardly analogous. I don't think Buffett's ever permanently lost money on investment due to fraud. What about Gen Re?... Or Salomon? Irish banks Was that deliberate fraud or mostly reaching for yield? I don't know the situation of the Irish banks. Bear in mind that there is often some wrongdoing that is uncovered in the wake of a company's demise that wasn't material to their failure. Incidental fraud is minor league, compared to deliberate fraud. Think of Lehman Bros., who tried to hide their deteriorating condition, compared to Parmalat or Madoff, deliberate frauds "from the git go". DW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Hester Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 My point is, Buffett has never invested in a ponzi scheme. You can probably find misdoings at some level at every company he owns, WMT, WFC, GS, KO, JNJ, etc... Even wholly owned subs. Just because they are so big, somebody is bound to be doing something wrong. Buffett has also made mistakes, Dexters Shoes, COP, Irish Banks, maybe even Moody's at this point. But those things are to be expected by even the best investor. However, never has there been a company that organized itself for the sole purpose of defrauding investors, that Buffett bought into. He's never been fooled. Now, Paulson likely has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oec2000 Posted June 21, 2011 Share Posted June 21, 2011 Anyone buying here I wonder? 15 to 1 upside vs. downside. Surely, a worthwhile gamble over 3 months. I wonder what price he got. It's too bad that even with his resources, he can't confirm whether he is dupped or not. There were enough red flags for those who wanted to see. If he got duped, it is not due to lack of resources, it was due to an inadequate focus on risk. "If it is too good to be true, ........................" It is ridiculous to compare Paulson's mistake with Buffett's - Paulson's error is amateurish. that's why risk risk risk should be the focus always. :'( Sadly, this was not the message people wanted to hear 10 days ago. Back then, the talk was about having to take risk in order to get multibaggers. The other points to take away from this episode is not to put blind faith in "reputable" analysts and not to dismiss outright the claims of short sellers, whether you like them or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted June 22, 2011 Share Posted June 22, 2011 The other points to take away from this episode is not to put blind faith in "reputable" analysts ahh, dont we love those guys (and gals)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alertmeipp Posted June 22, 2011 Author Share Posted June 22, 2011 too early to draw conclusion on one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsto Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Not sure if this has been posted cause I didnt want to go back and read all the posts about TRE, but I like this guys take on Paulson's position: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/paulson-sino-forest-loss.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BronteCapital+%28Bronte+Capital%29&utm_content=Google+Reader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S2S Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Not sure if this has been posted cause I didnt want to go back and read all the posts about TRE, but I like this guys take on Paulson's position: http://brontecapital.blogspot.com/2011/06/paulson-sino-forest-loss.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+BronteCapital+%28Bronte+Capital%29&utm_content=Google+Reader John at Bronte Capital hit another one out of the park - definitely one of the more level headed take I've seen on the situation. Thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now