dzwm87,
Well said.
In trading's parlance, a good trade does not always equal a profitable trade.
It's about following our own rules to ensure we have risk/reward on our side.
A bad trade is still a bad trade even if it's profitable (through pure dumb luck).
We can't control the outcome of our trades. We can only control when to enter and when to exit.
Some trading rules can be very relevant to investing - especially those on risk management.
(28-08-2013, 01:01 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Borrow words from Lim&Tan:
2. Admittedly, such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources is beyond the reach of local analysts like myself.
I believe that most of us work alone in investing. Unless we know how and where to look for it, otherwise we will surely miss out parts of the details in any research done.
well the first part of the research is true, I went to verify, you can try at the link given by glaucus too, just login as unregistered user and search under company name for hong kong yifenli.
https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/cns_basic_comp.do...
the result as below shows the same CR No.: 1388763 provided by Glaucus!!
---------------------------------------------------
Company Name Search
Your Search: LEFT PARTIAL match with 'hong kong yifenli' , CR No.: = 1388763
CR No.: 1388763
Company Name: HONG KONG YIFENLI TRADING LIMITED
香港一分利貿易有限公司
Company Type: Local Company
Date of Incorporation: 06-NOV-2009
Company Status: Private
Active Status: Live
Remarks: -
Winding Up Mode: -
Date of Dissolution: -
Register of Charges: Unavailable
Important Note: -
Name History
Effective Date Name Used
06-NOV-2009 HONG KONG YIFENLI TRADING LIMITED
香港一分利貿易有限公司
-------------------------------------------------------------
So basically for all hong kong company incorporation dates can be traced easily by using this online search... So basically "such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources" is just a bullshit excuse for not taking the time or having the brains to check things out. (pardon the analyst bashing)
I did not know the link for checking the hong kong and taiwan registries but any analyst covering S-Chips should know about checking these things. And it took me only a few minutes...
The other BIG thing could be that all those analyst and even GIC / BIG BOYS knows about the BIG BLUFF and its all just a BIG conspiracy
Total fees made by SGX cannot cover for the losses made by Singaporeans in S chips. As a country, Singapore is just another net loser in this game.
US's SEC have been trying unsuccessfully to get audit work papers from china auditors. Even the big brother cannot do anything to these fraudulent China company listed in US, don't talk about SGX.
With state protection, there is huge incentive for chinese companies to defraud investors in overseas exchange. It is a net win for the country as money flows in. This is like financial war games between countries, and s chip is the perfect weapon to suck money out of another country.
@BlueKelah
I posted a comment earlier at your question.
Regarding this, there are ways to "explain" it. I am not trying to find excuse for CMZ to make myself feel better. But this is definitely not a conclusive evidence that CMZ is definitely involved in fraud per se. The company may have been registered under a different name before 2009. Or registered under a different institution.
What is more pressing to me, is the allegation that CMZ is overstating its assets and fabricated earnings. Most of their allegation is backed by SIAC filings, which I am not experienced with. There is an article on
SIAC filings for your reference.
(28-08-2013, 01:23 AM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ] (28-08-2013, 01:01 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Borrow words from Lim&Tan:
2. Admittedly, such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources is beyond the reach of local analysts like myself.
I believe that most of us work alone in investing. Unless we know how and where to look for it, otherwise we will surely miss out parts of the details in any research done.
well the first part of the research is true, I went to verify, you can try at the link given by glaucus too, just login as unregistered user and search under company name for hong kong yifenli.
https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/cns_basic_comp.do...
-------------------------------------------------------------
So basically for all hong kong company incorporation dates can be traced easily by using this online search... So basically "such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources" is just a bullshit excuse for not taking the time or having the brains to check things out. (pardon the analyst bashing)
I did not know the link for checking the hong kong and taiwan registries but any analyst covering S-Chips should know about checking these things. And it took me only a few minutes...
The other BIG thing could be that all those analyst and even GIC / BIG BOYS knows about the BIG BLUFF and its all just a BIG conspiracy
The point I trying to bring up is, unless you know, do you know where to search? Will you read every announcement, and verify that it is 100% true? Without the "help" from Glaucus, will it just take you a few minutes?
(28-08-2013, 01:31 AM)Spidey Wrote: [ -> ]Total fees made by SGX cannot cover for the losses made by Singaporeans in S chips. As a country, Singapore is just another net loser in this game.
US's SEC have been trying unsuccessfully to get audit work papers from china auditors. Even the big brother cannot do anything to these fraudulent China company listed in US, don't talk about SGX.
With state protection, there is huge incentive for chinese companies to defraud investors in overseas exchange. It is a net win for the country as money flows in. This is like financial war games between countries, and s chip is the perfect weapon to suck money out of another country.
There are a lot of hidden hands behind this s-chips that gains from retailer and fund losses. A part of "Evil Capitalism" which requires stronger regulatory and punishment checks to contain which i find lacking therefore we are not attracting the right investment imo.
(28-08-2013, 01:31 AM)Spidey Wrote: [ -> ]Total fees made by SGX cannot cover for the losses made by Singaporeans in S chips. As a country, Singapore is just another net loser in this game.
US's SEC have been trying unsuccessfully to get audit work papers from china auditors. Even the big brother cannot do anything to these fraudulent China company listed in US, don't talk about SGX.
With state protection, there is huge incentive for chinese companies to defraud investors in overseas exchange. It is a net win for the country as money flows in. This is like financial war games between countries, and s chip is the perfect weapon to suck money out of another country.
Mas and SGX brought the wolves in , made their monies and watching the shows of wolves eating investors .
Lesson learnt in all this S chips AND SG scams - earnings easier to fake. And the modes operandi is always using a fake overseas subsi to book earnings. Eg, JEL, NEL, ACCS, Citiraya(?)
SGX and Sehk should just add an disclosure of incorporation date and corp registration number for the major customers. For IPO. Then it is up to the investors to double check.
For listed co, regulators should make companies make a declaration if there is a change in major customers. No need details.
actually SG incorporated companies quite easy to check. Never try HK, BVI or cayman or PRC.
(28-08-2013, 08:06 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ] (28-08-2013, 01:23 AM)BlueKelah Wrote: [ -> ] (28-08-2013, 01:01 AM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]Borrow words from Lim&Tan:
2. Admittedly, such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources is beyond the reach of local analysts like myself.
I believe that most of us work alone in investing. Unless we know how and where to look for it, otherwise we will surely miss out parts of the details in any research done.
well the first part of the research is true, I went to verify, you can try at the link given by glaucus too, just login as unregistered user and search under company name for hong kong yifenli.
https://www.icris.cr.gov.hk/csci/cns_basic_comp.do...
-------------------------------------------------------------
So basically for all hong kong company incorporation dates can be traced easily by using this online search... So basically "such detailed forensic research which requires a lot of time and resources" is just a bullshit excuse for not taking the time or having the brains to check things out. (pardon the analyst bashing)
I did not know the link for checking the hong kong and taiwan registries but any analyst covering S-Chips should know about checking these things. And it took me only a few minutes...
The other BIG thing could be that all those analyst and even GIC / BIG BOYS knows about the BIG BLUFF and its all just a BIG conspiracy
The point I trying to bring up is, unless you know, do you know where to search? Will you read every announcement, and verify that it is 100% true? Without the "help" from Glaucus, will it just take you a few minutes?
Well, if it is >30% of net worth, Better be more hardworking. When it is too good to be true, it may be too good to be true.
(28-08-2013, 08:23 AM)Stocker Wrote: [ -> ] (28-08-2013, 01:31 AM)Spidey Wrote: [ -> ]Total fees made by SGX cannot cover for the losses made by Singaporeans in S chips. As a country, Singapore is just another net loser in this game.
US's SEC have been trying unsuccessfully to get audit work papers from china auditors. Even the big brother cannot do anything to these fraudulent China company listed in US, don't talk about SGX.
With state protection, there is huge incentive for chinese companies to defraud investors in overseas exchange. It is a net win for the country as money flows in. This is like financial war games between countries, and s chip is the perfect weapon to suck money out of another country.
Mas and SGX brought the wolves in , made their monies and watching the shows of wolves eating investors .
SG also have their own scams eg JEL, ACCS, Citiraya.
Value investing doesn't work for the market for lemons (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Market_for_Lemons ).
The S-chips market is a market for lemons. So please stop looking for values in the S-chip market.
China Minzhong just an easy target?
US short-seller's ambush of firm flies in the face of experts' assessment
Published on Aug 28, 2013 By Goh Eng Yeow Senior Correspondent
FUJIAN vegetable seller China Minzhong makes the perfect target for short-sellers - and they have not been wasting any time showing it in recent days.
It is easy to see why the firm is vulnerable to this sort of attack.
The share price has doubled in just over a year, it is reasonably liquid, with more than six million shares traded a day, and its fragmented shareholding structure means it does not have a strong anchor investor.
The biggest, the Indonesian instant noodle maker Indofood Sukses Makmur, holds only about 30 per cent of the company.
Worse, its Chinese pedigree means that jittery investors are likely to imagine the worst if any doubt is cast upon it, given the spate of accounting scandals that tarnished the troubled S-chip sector - as China plays are known here - in recent years.
Not surprisingly, allegations by California-based Glaucus Research Group that China Minzhong fabricated sales and payments and overstated its capital expenditure sparked a short-selling frenzy on Monday.
The firm's share price almost halved to 53 cents as traders dumped 24 million shares in two hours before trading was halted.
In case market watchers were unsure what was happening, Glaucus founder Matt Wiechert roped in old schoolmate Soren Aandahl to spell it out. "We are short on Minzhong and therefore stand to realise significant gains in the event that the price of Minzhong stock declines."
Still, if the jittery investors who dumped their shares on Monday had cared to take a closer look, they would discover that Glaucus rests many of its allegations on historical information that arose before China Minzhong listed in 2010.
Post-listing, Glaucus raises the usual questions over the company's high capital expenditure, which it claimed was consistent with other S-chips and US-listed reverse takeovers engaged in fraud that had often overstated capital expenditure to mask fake sales in the balance sheet.
This calls into question the sanctity of numbers that have been certified by the company's auditors Crowe Horwath and the framework of safeguards put in place by the Singapore Exchange to protect investor interests.
Granted a fresh pair of eyes may pick up details others may have overlooked, but in putting a price target of zero on China Minzhong, Glaucus also makes a mockery of the four "buy" calls made by analysts who have been painstakingly tracking the firm.
In fact, when Glaucus released its report on Monday, Maybank Kim Eng analyst Wei Bin reiterated his "buy" call, expecting a "seasonally weak quarter, with nothing to worry (about)".
So, who are investors to believe? China Minzhong, which has halted trading of its shares, says "it will take all necessary steps to defend its reputation and will not hesitate to take legal action".
Of course, some of the worries flagged by Glaucus are genuine. CIMB, which stopped its coverage on Monday, said it found China Minzhong's intensive capital fund-raising worrying.
More interesting, however, was the reaction from Indofood whose investment director Thomas Tjhie told The Straits Times that the company had taken "all the necessary steps to ensure it had made a prudent investment".
He added: "Nonetheless, Indofood will conduct further study. Currently, Indofood remains committed to China Minzhong."
Indofood doubled its stake in China Minzhong to 29.33 per cent in March after picking up the 14.4 per cent belonging to GIC at $1.12 apiece after getting a foothold in the company the previous month via a placement of new shares.
Billionaire Anthoni Salim, who runs Indofood, is known to be one of the shrewdest businessmen in Asia and whose forebears hailed from an area near China Minzhong's Putian base.
Try telling a lay investor that Mr Salim had not done his homework when he was investing in China Minzhong and that two young Americans have managed to dig up dirt on the company that he may not be aware of.
Now, who do you think the investor will believe?