>>Rather 27,164 was number of screens on which each of its advertisers had purchased advertising and then summing the screen count for each advertiser to produce an aggregate number of screens. There is a difference.

The screen count is as ridiculous as the theater count. Both are impossible. There were less than 4,100 urban screens in all of China in 2008. See http://www.scribd.com/doc/78114133/A-Critical-Failure-in-the-Focus-Media-Story-FMCN

The FMCN sentence is calculated to confuse and it has worked. If it refers to screens, then the screen count is just as impossible as the theater count. It would also mean fraud, so if I were a long investor I would not want it to refer to screens. The only way the number can work is if it refers to some version of "ads purchased" ... as your example suggests:

*******Nugget

Let me give you a fictional example. Let's say in a Memphis, Tennessee there are 5 movie theaters. Each movie theater has 10 screens. Xerox decides to run 5 ads on each screen, Home Depot runs 4 ads on each screen, and Ford runs 3 ads on only 4 screens in one theater.

There are four ways to give numbers:

1. We have 5 movie theaters using our ads.

2. We have 50 screens using our ads. (5 theaters with 10 screens each).

3. We have 104 screens (this was FMCN method of Xerox runs on 50 screens, Home Depot runs on 50 screens, and Ford runs on 4 screens. Add 50+50+4. That equal 104.)

**************

RE #3: How is this not a version of ads purchased? It certainly does not represent the number of screens, which you admitted was only 50.

And using your method, how do you take the number 27,000 and the number of theaters pre and post the fiasco (less than 300) and make your numbers work?

>>>>4. We have 462 screens (Matt accuses FMCN of doing this, which is adding up the number of adds. Xerox runs 250 ads (5x50), Home Depot runs 200 ads (4x50), and Ford runs 12 ads (3x4). That equals 600).

You misunderstand. I have not refuted FMCN. FMCN has refuted itself through its own filings.

In 2008, there were

Less than 1,600 theaters

Less than 4,100 screens.

FMCN claimed 27,000 theaters and did not correct the definition of theaters until caught red-handed by Muddy Waters, saying in a very convoluted way that the number 27,000 meant neither theaters nor screens. The ONLY way to account for the number 27,000 is to "re-define" it as ads purchased, as you did with your Memphis example. Even a five-year old would not fall for this.

>> I think Focus media should have used the number of theaters (5) or the number of screens (50). They chose the calculate it and get 104.

And this does not give you pause? You raise your own red flags and then choose not to see the red in them??!!

>>>Matt accuses them of scenario #4. FMCN may have done some fuzzy math here, but not in the way Matt is accusing them.

Disregarding any disagreement with you on other points here, how can FMCN’s “fuzzy math” ever be a good thing?