Wed, Apr 23, 2014, 2:37 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 23 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Focus Media Holding Ltd. Message Board

  • mjtaylor1983 mjtaylor1983 Feb 9, 2012 2:39 PM Flag

    dear matt & MW.....

    thank you so very much for making up that bs and passing it off as a thing. anyone on the ground who actually knows anything about this company knew the truth the whole time. Great buy opportunity at that $10 a share, fastest profits I ever made.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Yes. I cite that amendment in the article. http://seekingalpha.com/article/343211-focus-media-s-explanation-comes-up-short-part-2-the-theater-count


      The entire point is that investors did not hear of a new method for calculation until that amendment -- Jan 20, 2012.

      For years FMCN continued to refer to a 27,164 theater network.

      If they had changed "prior to 2009" why didn't they change prior to 2009?

    • The correction is in an amendment fool!

    • They did indeed submit the filing in December 2010 with the 27,164-theaters sentence. If they changed the calculation "Prior to 2009" the mention of 27,164 theaters does not belong there. They had plenty of time to correct it. Even as of December 2010, they still had not changed it.

      The only reference to any change in calculation method, that I have found, appears only after they were exposed by MW.

    • That is an amendment to a previous filing and therefore would not have changed that text. So, you are adding 6 months to your data point to suit your story...more spin.

      And I know that you know that this is not the same company as it was prior to Sept. 2009...but you wouldn't want to discuss that because it doesn't help your short position.

    • You haven't done your homework, nor have they.

      If they changed "prior to 2009" why did they continue to use the number in the 2009 20-F?

      The last reference I have found: They were still using the 27,164 number in a filing they made in December 2010. http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1330017/000095012310112695/0000950123-10-112695-index.htm

    • Matt,

      You have just been served.

      FMCN press release just said they corrected the number already in 2009. So youre looking at old reports!!! How dumb

    • “The idea that there are/were only 1600 theaters in the largest country in the world, is highly unlikely.”

      It’s not my data. http://www.scribd.com/doc/78114133/A-Critical-Failure-in-the-Focus-Media-Story-FMCN

      “This poster's explanation sounds much more plausible, and …”

      He’s just making things up and so are you. Provide some references to your claims please.

      “FMCN has admitted that previous over-eager company officials/marketing agents exagerated the "screens".

      Where did they clearly admit to an inflated LCD or Theater count? How would that not prove that MW was right all along? And why would such an admission be harmless? I accept that that is how all of the filings add up, but I have not yet seen a clear admission that would help investors adjust to the appropriate level of caution.

      “You can't use an article written by yourself as evidence that you are correct (about anything).”

      My article is not the evidence. The SEC and FMCN references it contains are.

      “You didn't even address the posters explanation about how 1,600 number is incorrect.”

      Can you explain it? His explanation doesn’t make any sense. Can you at least tell me what the number “1,600” refers to (the precise number is 1,545), who provided it, and why it is relevant? I’m not convinced that you are familiar with the topic in question. Please provide references to the facts so that all will know that you are not just making things up.

      “The total number of screens in China could easily exceed 27,000, making you wrong.”

      You guys just keep making this stuff up. What does the number 27,000 mean to you? When you say “screens” what are you referring to?

      “The poster is correct: all that matters is number of ads sold and the profit generated”

      Before you accept the numbers you must address the credibility of the source that provides those numbers. Everything downstream from a proven liar must be thrown out the window.

      “ oh, and that thing called 'growth' that FMCN is amazing at.”

      The only growth here is in the number of new explanations, and as they arrive, our estimation of the assets continues to shrink.

    • Matt, you are a child. The idea that there are/were only 1600 theaters in the largest country in the world, is highly unlikely. You holding your breath and jumping up and down does not change anything. This poster's explanation sounds much more plausible, and generally logical than anything you have written. You continue to attack the slightest twist of a word simply because it supports your investment. You argue apples and oranges. Yes, FMCN has admitted that previous over-eager company officials/marketing agents exagerated the "screens". But, you are the one attempting to spin it. You can't use an article written by yourself as evidence that you are correct (about anything). That is laughable and shows your lack of substance. Therefore, you have no business criticizing the exagerations of others. You didn't even address the posters explanation about how 1,600 number is incorrect. Again, just completely dishonest. Both the poster, and FMCN's revised statement can be true. FMCN never said they had every screen in China. The total number of screens in China could easily exceed 27,000, making you wrong. You have zero ability to refute that point. The poster is correct: all that matters is number of ads sold and the profit generated (oh, and that thing called 'growth' that FMCN is amazing at).

      BTW, the idea that the number of screens is an 'input' is incorrect. The accountants don't know anything about number of screens or number of LCD screens. The inputs to the income statement are income and expenses. The output is profit.

      Regarding LCD count, MW's assertion: "We estimate that each LCD television generates monthly revenue seven times that of a cardboard poster." is simply conjecture for one, and irrelevant for two. Even if true, it certainly does not mean that you can just replace a cardboard sign with an LCD one and generate 7 times the revenue (let's not even talk about ROI).

    • As for the claim that I have made things up: A fact please. Or show me a contradiction. Just one.

      Here are some facts I present that confirm MW research: A critical failure in the focus media story
      http://www.scribd.com/doc/78114133/A-Critical-Failure-in-the-Focus-Media-Story-FMCN

      and here, RE LCD count
      http://seekingalpha.com/article/343191-focus-media-s-explanation-comes-up-short-part-1-the-lcd-count

 

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.