China Minzhong Food Corporation

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
(28-08-2013, 06:58 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: Correction: 莆田市工商行政管理局 Report fabricated?
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=89
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=88
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=87

Edit; Original source: http://www.pt.fjaic.gov.cn/html/201308281743052851.html

Related (?) Notice: http://www.pt.fjaic.gov.cn/html/201304241637085145.html

Putian Daziran Vegetables Auditor's Reports Glaucus provided are, at best, leaked illegally, at worse fake.

This doesn't provide any conclusive evidence yet, still waiting for CMZ's official reply.

Actually, someone show me the link too.

There is no mention of it being leaked, or fake.

t simply means: the bureau has been alerted by minzhong that there are some using its name to release info about minzhong, it states that all info on companies obtained legally through the bureau will have a offical stamp on it.

1)the bureau did not mentioned anything about not releasing any data on CMZ, on pinpointing any forgery on Glaucus part, it is like a motherhood statement pending a complaint from CMZ.
2) Supplementary evidence from Glaucus is obtained from the auditing company of CMZ not from the bureau, and the auditor report does has the auditing company stamp. Auditing documents need not come from the bureau
3) The application of foreign enterprise status which must indeed come from the bureau SAIC, does have the legal stamp on it.
4) If you read the edge singapore article on glaucus few years ago, they mention they have been getting info from SAIC since they deal "CMR" a deadly blow, they mention they will pleasantly surprised that SAIC will actually rather forthcoming with the info, CMZ is not the first time they use info from SAIC as bullets.

--------------------------------------

But my thoughts were:
The main "attacks" to me were about "supplier" and "customer" orders that were simply not there since pre-IPO time. If this is the case, how could GIC wash their hands off this? I mean I disagree with the agrument some of forummers here make about it being legitimate earlier on and that went on some acc fabrication run later on.

I am not surprised that s-chips might have accounts that are not "clean", inflated or simply pluck from the sky, but the question is now, what is the situation now? IF indon-food did make their due dilligence in site visits and scuttlebutting customers and competitors, could it be the dirt is in the past? Why do I ask this, I mean investors usually track current customers and suppliers more closely than IPO customers and suppliers, as the past is history. There are companies with hundreds or even thousand of customers and suppliers, and if one is talking about historical customers and suppliers too, how can one effectively tracked these unless there is some whistle blowing? One should do due dilligence with suppliers and customers listed at prospectus, but once they are listed, info about major customers and suppliers are updated at the whim and fancy of companies, some will have such info of new customers, but whether existing customers are gone or new suppliers come to picture, such info are not available even at the footnotes of their AR.

Just trying to learn as much as possible from this episode, not vested.
Reply
(28-08-2013, 06:58 PM)Wildreamz Wrote: Correction: 莆田市工商行政管理局 Report fabricated?
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=89
http://www.chinaminzhong.com/newsinfo.asp?id=88

I could not find who had penned the above articles.

As for the authenticity of the Daziran statement, we just need Mr Lin Guo Rong or auditor to show their signatures.

and I did a check on the auditor for daziran 福州东祥会计师事务所 and unexpectedly found the info below

http://www.caijing001.com/fince/hxjj/201...13032.html

福建6家会计师事务所被处罚
福建省财政厅近日发布的《会计信息质量检查公告》显示,福建会计师事务所的执业质量仍有待提高,福建天和会计师事务所、厦门晟远会计师事务所等6家会计师事务所因为出具不实审计报告被行政处罚。
  公告显示,2010年福建省财政厅组织全省各级财政部门开展了会计师事务所执业质量检查,共检查会计师事务所40户。从总体上看,会计师事务所的谨慎意识和责任意识普遍增强,但执业质量仍有待进一步提高。
  检查发现,部分中小会计师事务所未建立风险导向审计理念,内部质量控制薄弱,审计程序执行不到位,“抄账”审计现象仍较为普遍。福建天和会计师事务所内部管理混乱,内控制度严重缺失,该所签字注册会计师将本人签字盖章并加盖了事务所公章的空白报告,提供给非注册会计师人员出具不实审计报告的违法行为。厦门晟远会计师事务所、厦门众成会计师事务所、福州东祥会计师事务所、厦门大誉会计师事务所、晋江市超群联合会计师事务所等5家会计师事务所在未履行必要的审计程序、未获取充分适当的审计证据的情况下,出具了不实的审计报告,发表了不恰当的审计意见。
  针对检查发现的问题,福建省财政厅和各级财政部门依法进行了处理处罚,对福建天和会计师事务所、厦门晟远会计师事务所、厦门众成会计师事务所、福州东祥会计师事务所、厦门大誉会计师事务所、晋江市超群联合会计师事务所6家会计师事务所分别予以警告或暂停经营业务3-6个月、没收违法所得并处以1-2倍罚款共计2.81万元的行政处罚,对10名注册会计师分别予以警告或暂停执业3-6个月不等的行政处罚。此外,将35名注册会计师移交福建省注册会计师协会予以行业自律惩戒。
Reply
I did not go through the report in detail except the executive summary but I assume that the checks on the top 3 customers are basically reports that they dig out of govt tax reporting websites for eg ACRA. I am just thinking is it possible that the actual customers company names are wrong as it is common in China that names are not fully aligned. Another possibility is we know that in China there are always 3 books (one for tax, one for investors and one for business owner). If figures are based on the wrong reports, it will mean very differently. Lastly, no doubt the auditor is not one of the big four, but I find it hard to believe that during their audit work they are not able to uncover something fishy. Auditors due to limited review time will most probably review the top material customers in details and there will be evidence trail like receipts, invoices, bank deposits, reconciliation reports which all has to be faked by CMZ. This sounds like a massive effort to committ fraud which regardless to say e basic due diligence from GIC and Salim would at least be visiting major customers.. My 2 cents and not vested
Reply
China Minzhong Food Corporation Limited (i) Refutes Allegations in Reports Released by Glaucus Research Group and Extends Trading Halt, and (ii) Changes Timing for Release of Full Year Results to this Evening


...the Company has obtained an extension from the SGX-ST to extend its trading halt to 5:00 p.m., 30 August 2013 (Friday)....
Luck & Fortune Favours those who are Prepared & Decisive when Opportunity Knocks
------------ 知己知彼 ,百战不殆 ;不知彼 ,不知己 ,每战必殆 ------------
Reply
(29-08-2013, 06:50 AM)Greenrookie Wrote: Actually, someone show me the link too.

There is no mention of it being leaked, or fake.

t simply means: the bureau has been alerted by minzhong that there are some using its name to release info about minzhong, it states that all info on companies obtained legally through the bureau will have a offical stamp on it.

1)the bureau did not mentioned anything about not releasing any data on CMZ, on pinpointing any forgery on Glaucus part, it is like a motherhood statement pending a complaint from CMZ.
2) Supplementary evidence from Glaucus is obtained from the auditing company of CMZ not from the bureau, and the auditor report does has the auditing company stamp. Auditing documents need not come from the bureau

My problem is with the fact that the auditors report, dispite having the words "本页由莆田市工商行政管理局提供" printed on every page, does not have the stamp on it, which lead me to the conclusion that it must be either leaked or fake.

I may be wrong, as I am not trained not experienced with China accounting practices.
Reply
Auditors arent allowed leak information to outsiders...
But i wouldnt think that Glaucus would forge the evidence, that will get them into very very serious trouble.
Reply
Put down name of Kim eng and UOB kh as references.
What if these guys dropped coverage?
"... but quitting while you're ahead is not the same as quitting." - Quote from the movie American Gangster
Reply
.China can fake anything. So a fake report for Glaucus is also possible. Like watching 无间道. Dunno who is the good guy, who is the bad guy now. Bad guy also possibly want to be good guy.

I must admit that I am very novice in the financial world!
Reply
(29-08-2013, 08:58 AM)l0nEr Wrote: Auditors arent allowed leak information to outsiders...
But i wouldnt think that Glaucus would forge the evidence, that will get them into very very serious trouble.

Maybe its their source that forged the documents, maybe they just left the stamp part out?

Anyway, anything we say here now would be just speculation.
Reply
(29-08-2013, 08:59 AM)opmi Wrote: Put down name of Kim eng and UOB kh as references.
What if these guys dropped coverage?

The analysts dropped coverage so that they look stupid? Lim&Tan also drop Sino Grandness and Yomada.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)