That report by the chinese reporter is not pretty. Thus far it is the only independent view on the company. Eric Jackson, long(silent), Rick Pearson long(silent), Roth long(silent), Harbingerlong (silent), IR(silent), ONP(silent)...all those are the longs who stand to gain financially as yes, Roth and Harbinger were given shares for their services. MW (short) so they are biased as well.
When civil action hits this it goes to 1 buck
my official view from previously being long.
It seems the Chinese report may not have been valid and have been deleted from the site it originated from. This means all opinions derived from it are by virtue tainted.
The article originally stated that the reporter RECEIVED files from Muddywaters, in that the reporter was in direct contact with them. This might have been falsified and so the newpaper retracted the story.
Well it won't be $16 unless it's in my dreams, so I don't know. What I do know is there are companies here and abroad that have limited growth or profits trading higher, sometimes much higher. We're going to know much more about this company than most, so maybe the devil you know is better than the one you don't know.
Look at what we found out about GS, are they at 0?
I feel the same way you do.
Muddy Water's report has got some discrepancies on how the company reported its book.
But I do believe the company is profitable, although like ALL other companies out there, Chinese or otherwise, ONP has cooked its books somewhat. The question is how much, which brings into question on how one values this company.
What price should it be trading at?
Because you can take a couple pieces of fact, and create a story. This story such as Muddy Waters has some truths probably, but I think much has been skewed. As far as how a Chinese company goes from basically being a 'shell' to creating a flourishing company, we find shocking, but I think it is all part of business in China. So I don't find it a shock. Take a look at our own history, was every transaction out there, above board, and legal 200 years ago? Probably not, but they created industry and so will the Chinese.
Just my wierd sense of humor Mark, but my respone to thinking the divy would make them legit, try this.
They borrow money under a subsid., pay you under the 'company', then announce a shelf offering lol.
No unfortunately they were not silent. Had those long groups below NOT responded the damge would have been done once and not daily.
It changed from production to accounting to structure to reporting to tax evasion to incest kickbacks.....
Long-Term Sentiment Disclosure
Wish the long camp would declare uncle
ONP obviously put out two reports, one with a lot of valid information and links and facts and they also hosted a conference call and are getting a big 4 audit firm to come in and also show their validity. Rick Pearson has had 1 article, Eric Pearson has written 3, some being through a paid service on the street, but nonetheless he has responded with valid points several times. Robert Hsu has made a response as well. As I have stated these people and the company cannot respond every second and to non reputable and unknown random people posting random comments. The issue is peoples overreaction to every little thing even if it comes from an unknown person or random blogger and a non reputable source