(02-09-2013, 06:24 PM)Behappyalways Wrote: [ -> ]honestly I feel quite sorry for those shortist.......
sometimes in life(well in many times....), it is not the one who are right wins but the one with the bigger fire power($$$ and etc)
I find Indofood's actions rather impulsive.....why jump in now...should have wait till you have a clearer picture....maybe they are very very confident so they are taking advantage of the situation. Honestly with them coming on not too long ago, I really doubt they really have a good picture so I deemed it impulsive......
The minority shareholders are saved.....might be a time to get out and re-read glaucus's report....You might be lucky this time round but maybe not the next......
my two cents worth....
Honestly I DO NOT feel sorry for those shortist !! I only feel sorry for the Valued Investors who sold at a great loss last week.
Not Vested.
valued investors? you meant you have come to the conclusion that glaucus's report is faulty?
We have no idea who is right IMHO except an educated probabilistic guess but net net on a factual and report writing basis I think Glaucus did better, even with the rebuttal. Note however the main arguments are on documentation facts rather than operational. Muddy Water follow up report on Olam OTOH was dismal. Anonymous report on HK listed Huabao was very well written and rounded.
@Kopikat does offshore shortselling in Singapore has to be declared as well like in HK?
(02-09-2013, 07:13 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]We have no idea who is right IMHO except an educated probabilistic guess but net net on a factual and report writing basis I think Glaucus did better, even with the rebuttal. Note however the main arguments are on documentation facts rather than operational. Muddy Water follow up report on Olam OTOH was dismal. Anonymous report on HK listed Huabao was very well written and rounded.
@Kopikat does offshore shortselling in Singapore has to be declared as well like in HK?
Indofood's investors sure didn't like the CMZ takeover. Indofood share price is down 9% today. Personally, I think Indofood snared a great bargain at 4x PE.
All of my fund manager friends hate CMZ's cultivated veggie business because it has no inherent financial leverage (prepaid farm land lease can't be collateralized for bank borrowings or secured bond issuance. There is only so much unsecured bonds you can issue).
Weirdly enough, the cultivated veggie business is also the business retail investors can't stop talking about.
(02-09-2013, 07:13 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]We have no idea who is right IMHO except an educated probabilistic guess but net net on a factual and report writing basis I think Glaucus did better, even with the rebuttal.
Specuvestor
I beg to differ. Glaucus' case was premised on the issue of fictitious customers. All the rest of the "evidence" is rather iffy. Once CMZ can provide a good reason for these "fictitious" customers, their case start to look less credible.
Which is different from saying that Glaucus lost money. They could have made back what they lost in CMZ through shorting Indofood.....
(02-09-2013, 08:05 PM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 07:13 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]We have no idea who is right IMHO except an educated probabilistic guess but net net on a factual and report writing basis I think Glaucus did better, even with the rebuttal.
Specuvestor
I beg to differ. Glaucus' case was premised on the issue of fictitious customers. All the rest of the "evidence" is rather iffy. Once CMZ can provide a good reason for these "fictitious" customers, their case start to look less credible.
The evidence provided by CMZ was not really that great. A company that was not set up before 2009, with no public filings, and owned by one Taiwanese businessman,which no one know, was the top buyer of CMZ's products??
If someone comes with this story and willing to sell you his company at PE 4. Will you buy?
Indofood probably knows more about CMZ. But, for us with only public information, it is really a bit difficult to believe.
Quote:It is illegal to operate a business in Hong Kong (or anywhere in the world, to our knowledge) without a business
registration. But the legal ramifications pale in comparison to the practical considerations. We are not aware of any
jurisdiction in which a business can open a bank account without formation documents, so was the Company simply
receiving RMB 188 million from a personal account?
the rebuttal was quite humorous...haha..
Vow, this is a very scary ride for CMZ share holders. Congrat! You deserve to treat yourself an annual pass ticket at Sentosa universal studio to try out Battlesta aalactica roller coaster for a year :-)
Better to sell out now before Indofood share holders change their mind or the deal does not go through.
(02-09-2013, 08:31 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 08:05 PM)HitandRun Wrote: [ -> ] (02-09-2013, 07:13 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]We have no idea who is right IMHO except an educated probabilistic guess but net net on a factual and report writing basis I think Glaucus did better, even with the rebuttal.
Specuvestor
I beg to differ. Glaucus' case was premised on the issue of fictitious customers. All the rest of the "evidence" is rather iffy. Once CMZ can provide a good reason for these "fictitious" customers, their case start to look less credible.
The evidence provided by CMZ was not really that great. A company that was not set up before 2009, with no public filings, and owned by one Taiwanese businessman,which no one know, was the top buyer of CMZ's products??
If someone comes with this story and willing to sell you his company at PE 4. Will you buy?
Indofood probably knows more about CMZ. But, for us with only public information, it is really a bit difficult to believe.
Quote:It is illegal to operate a business in Hong Kong (or anywhere in the world, to our knowledge) without a business
registration. But the legal ramifications pale in comparison to the practical considerations. We are not aware of any
jurisdiction in which a business can open a bank account without formation documents, so was the Company simply
receiving RMB 188 million from a personal account?
the rebuttal was quite humorous...haha..
Hey, don't look down on sole proprietorship, ok.
CMZ is not the only S-chip with sole proprietorships as their top customers.
(02-09-2013, 03:01 PM)KopiKat Wrote: [ -> ]Lesson to be learnt : Don't mess around with those who have both money and power and the motivation to influence the outcome.... from both the cases of CMZ & Olam...
Exactly! Who is telling the truth sometimes doesn't matter at least for the short term. That is the short sellers may be right but........ It's too late baby... when it counts.
Just watch & learn.
How did Indofood purchase the married deal quantity at $1.12 in the first place, when the shares are still halted, to trigger the GO? Just for educational purposes.. thank you.