Understanding Focus Media’s LCD Count Scandal
… An Analogy Mixing Apples And Oranges
I am short FMCN
6. Go through the 20-fs year by year and you can see fmcn reinventing itself, and claiming revenue for previous years that it did not mention in the years of those filings themselves.
Love to see more about the above.
That is absolutely nuts. I remember Navistar getting kicked off the NYSE I believe while they restated all their quarterly results going back like six years. Just timing of the revenue, there wasn't any controversy about the revenues themselves just which quarter. In a big time dog house, and the share price collapsed. This outfit seems to get a pass on restating revenues, assets, and so on.
I appreciate all leads. FMCN is a very rich source. I follow the 80-20 rule, so if 20% of my time doesn't get me 80% of what I need I move on to the next idea and retest. Of course, if I don't continue with something it doesn't mean it wasn't a good lead. It's just the way working luck goes. I'll give it an 80-20 between my next two projects. Thanks again.
I appreciate your dedication and work. I remember your research on CHBT when that was exposed as well. I was hoping to give you another avenue to explore, which I attempted briefly but did not have enough time to do so thoroughly. One thing that may be interesting to look into is website registration info and historical website registration info (there are some sites that provide this for a small fee.)
For example NEWN, a fraud rto, I first realized they were committing fraud because one of their so-called acquistions never showed up on the web until 1 month prior to the acquistion. Looking at the registration info, laughably both NEWN's site and the acquisition had been originally registered by the same person. Interestingly after pointing this out for a while last year on the NEWN board, someone changed the registration info to hide this. However it was still availible through historical records.
I don't know if this would uncover anything in regards to FMCN, but maybe it would if you are lacking areas to investigate.
I'm not a momentum investor, and there is no doubt that the market has been kind to you these last few days. So congrats.
Your game is different from mine. I like to find a case where
... the company has suffered a critical failure in its story for which there can be no explanation.
... and where extra-market forces bear down on the company according to a timeline and in a way that the price must follow.
I have no control over the focus of regulators and they are busy, so I accept that I can still lose this bet. That's the way the game is played.
I will be watching QIHU, since it is up to bat with Deloitte first. Of course, I'll be watching this whole sector ... but especially those who work with Deloitte TT. (The SEC suit is difficult to ignore.) If we are in August and nothing has happened and the price has not moved, my hat will be off to you.
Disclosure: I also have a short position in QIHU (smaller than FMCN).
I agree with you on that, given enough time anything could happen. With the demise of GM and Kodak, nobody should have doubt that one day the business model @omight fail. My next question is that how much can you afford to lose and how long can you wait. I rather make money than an argument with no support from the market
In the short-run, the market has a mind of its own. I agree. You and I have very little to do with it. But I still talk about football games, even if my discussion doesn't influence their wins or losses. So do you.
IN the long run I believe that, given enough exposure to the facts, the price will tend to trade about the value of the company and the credibility of the management. I'm in this for the long run.
In the case of companies which have deliberately misrepresented their assets there is also the risk of regulatory action.
Amazing, You still want to hang these count as evidence for fraud while the market keep saying to you: 'What is the big deal' You still think SEC will come down hard onFMCN because of this. That is what I call,wishfull thinking. The tragic you still refuse to accept the market has a mind of its own. You and I have no influence on it.
That's funny. Instead of demonstrating a problem with the logic in the expression, you dare me to demonstrate encyclopedic knowledge of one of its nouns.
a: All dogs are mammals. This is a dog. There for this is a mammal.
b: how can you know that? Are you a vet? Did you major in zoology?
FMCN:"... due to a lack of adequate power sources or other technical limitations, and therefore opted to use some traditional picture frame devices in these areas." ----- "… the 1.0 picture frame devices that are part of the LCD display network only display traditional fixed images.”
Pokernstock: How can you know that? Are your an electrical engineer?
If it was "clear" you wouldn't be confused. It certainly is not clear. But, everything I read about it leads me to believe that these are Liquid Crystal Displays. It doesn't sound like you are an engineer. Have you ever tried to hook up a 220V device when there is only 110VAC available? How many amps do these devices draw? Do you know that it takes a much different LCD device to show video than static images? Do these need a network connection or does a technician have to come change the image? Can the powerline be used for networking? When you can answer all of these questions, then it may be clear. See you at the finish line.