My apologies, Southern. I just saw the SA article by Geo posted yesterday where they verified that Gao never even started a deal with them. You are right: even the documents Gao posted are fake. I was going on information from Friday.
Wow! This is even worse than anyone thought. To your point though, the fake documents would have likely duped CVWB enough to explain the withdrawal of the original $12.5M from YUII at the end of 2009. I still say that it's an extreme of egregious incompetence to ignore the missing or unmatched business activity for the next year without question and sign off on the 10K. I suppose it depends on if and how long of a trail of forged documents Gao was feeding CVWB and how much CVWB ignored standard external verification.
Keep in mind though that this was not a single event CVWB 'missed' in 2009 - they signed off on YUII's 10K a few months ago. They should have been a little more skeptical by this point.
Check the details on YUII again, southern. The LOI documents and down-payment were authentic with legit seals, the deal just wasn't completed. Gao just pretended the deal was finalized while he scrambled to cover his butt with additional purchases later on from his stash.
An auditor missing *this* much has clearly done little auditing. The auditor didn't bother to matched the largest purchase in a company's history to millions in new, mysteriously appearing assets unconnected to the original deal? They didn't even bother to ask a question about either one? That just has no excuse - a chimp would have stumbled over that. This has nothing to do with bank branch fraud or the myriad other ways some Chinese CEOs use to bamboozle auditors. This is a total lack of - or collossal failure of - the most basic auditing principals. It wasn't a particularly clever deception. In fact, it looks like it *depended* on a blind, deaf, dumb auditor to drag out this long.
Keep in mind that GeoInvesting's single phone call was apparently more 'auditing' than Child, Von Wagoner cared to do. They are the laughing stock of the industry today.
With YUII it was a $12.5mm fake purchase. YUII created forged documents with fake seals (which they recently showed) as supporting docs for the 2009 audit. NO AUDITOR, NOT EVEN TOP 4, were digging that extensively during routine audits to discover criminally forged documents. Now they are checking because of all the fraud problems in the space, but a year or two ago that wasn't standard. I could and would blame CVWD going forward if something like this got by them.
Like schizo902 for his flip flopping and childish name calling, most responsible posters are definitely dismissive of you and your flimsy attempts to keep "piling on" dirt. If you are getting this same reaction on other boards, maybe it's time for some introspection?
Your IQ is obviously up to par, but the EQ part....well, might need a little adjustment there. Use your talents to get the real info on LPH, not just this penny ante stuff that appears to be nothing more than scare tactics. Be the hacker that goes legit. Use your talents for digging up stuff that is beneficial to the board here - positive or negative matters not, if it is credible.
Same goes for Citron, Muddy Waters, et al. If they want to win the PR battle, they need to realize that it is time to change tactics. Imagine what Muddy Waters could become if they published a report on some RTO that was clean and full of potential? They would instantly become the darling of the space with a couple of buy recommendations, and gain immediate respect and credibility. Doesn't mean they have to stop playing "Gotcha". It's called "balance". Credibility knows how to maintain that balance.
"...CVWB's record has by all accounts been very clean for many years. Suddenly, one CEO of one company has allegedly pulled a fast one on everyone, and now the auditor is incompetent?..."
Answered with a scathing PCAOB audit indicating incompetence.
Answered with NEWN's being forced to restate indicating incompetence.
All this after the CVWB misses a $25M fraudulent 'acquisition' at YUII.
CB's response: "...It is a "grey science", and much is an "interpretation" of the facts..."
I see - so when my unfounded accusations are supporting by 'facts', then the original issue suddenly becomes irrelevant. Yet the longs seem perfectly willing to censor or mount personal attacks to guard LPH against such seemingly irrelevant issues. Now why is that, CB?
Wake up, CB. While Cai doles out thousands of $.66 shares to his pals or wealthy R&R clients (maybe YOU'RE one), you defend this against any negative PR like a rabid guard Chihuahua. I could speculate why, but then I would be dragging myslef down to your level.
This sounds suspiciously like the NEP board - the pied pipers arrogantly dismissed or supressed any negative discussions, instantly labelling anyone who wouldn't drink the Kool-Aid a paid basher. They disappeared like cockroaches when NEP's own bad numbers forced a halt. No pied pipers around by that time. They had drummed up enough support to bail at 10 and left the doe-eyed bagholders stuck at nine and a halt. How coincidental.
I have no idea what this stock is going to do, but I'll be here a year from now, up or down. You'll only be here as long as it takes to run it up to - what - $2.50 again? Then we'll never hear from you again.
Clever morepav - but mostly irrelevant. You've picked some very good quotes out of the reports that appear to be fatal to the process. However, these are the accounting equivalent of not dotting some i's and crossing some t's. Nothing was fatal to these companies and they didn't even re-issue statements. LPH just issued similar language on the last 10K over the way the warrants were being treated. It was just a technicality, and had no effect, but they have to use the words "previous statements cannot be relied on...yadayada". Unless you have been exposed to high level financial audits, you could be forgiven for assuming that the sky is falling when mistakes like this are made. Hard to imagine, I know, but accountants and auditors can have differing opinions on the way items in a financial statement are "treated". It is a "grey science", and much is an "interpretation" of the facts. That's why auditing isn't foolproof for any company, in any country. At the end of the day, you have to look at the business the company is in, its model, its experience, and their filing records over a period of time. I am sure if put under a microscope you could find all kinds of little deficiencies in LPH's statements and filings. Does that mean they are fraudulent or doing something behind everyone's backs? No. Does it mean they are squeaky clean? No. In this case, time will tell. Most of those who have done a lot of DD on this though are confident that it is what it appears to be.
as usual CB, good point. Unfortunatly, the good posters here have been heard from less and less lately because of all the crap.
On occasion, I will have a question or comment for the true longs here. Be sure to check in once in a while. The next ten days will be interesting. I truly hope your investment here will prove successful for you.