EVERYTHING that was posted in the article today was an unsubstantiated opinion of the author. These claims have been clearly refuted by the company once already and have not been made by ANYone except Bezek. The damage to the share price has been immense and there is no proof whatsoever that there is anything truly wrong - only one individual's barely articulate ramblings. That is vastly more criminal and lawsuit-worthy than a company honestly missing quarterly estimates and having the share price slaughtered then being sued by the vampire lawfirms.
Bezek is clearly motivated and his conclusions flawed. He is careful though to refer to company data as the basis for these conclusions which would make a case against him difficult. The fact that people act on his ill conceived nonsense and give airtime to SA is the real crime.
For me, the fundamentals are still in tact and the future looks good. With any Chinese small cap there are risks but I believe. Yongye to be one of the best opportunities out there today and I see this as a buying opp.
Having an opinion on a message board is one thing but, stating that opinion in a financial news media has strength. It is that strength that makes this advise as opposed to just stating an opinion. This was the malicious act of a student looking for attention and he found it. He found a place to affect this company after speaking with the IR. To whose benefit was he making a point.
Why didn't ecd.fan write this article, it sounds just like him, oh, maybe he did. In my opinion Ian Bezek is ecd.fan and seesaw.
No company should have to disclose its customers in filings. Cust A,B,C. is fine. Let the competitors do thier own %^&* market research. Imagine if Proctor and Gamble had to disclose all customers.
The first rule of investing if "Know thy risk tolerance"
Shorts will always say BOO!!!! Buy more if you believe in the story or piggy back on their BS with put spreads.
The real issue is not slick, smart writers with a hidden agenda freaking out investors who are in too deep and weather or not its libel, the issue is the uptick rule which got the ax in the W administration. after years and years of use.
And yes I realize that I am arguing both sides here.
Opinions are no longer opinions IF let's say that Ian received benefits (in either monetary or non-monetary forms). It then becomes an intended / calculated motive through implied action. This would be very easy to prove. This comes from a sibling of mine who happens to be an attorney specialized in Corporate Affairs (for one of the Big 4 actually). If I were Ian, I'd be careful... I see potential civil lawsuits (not criminal). If Ian is doing this simply to land a fat gig at GS let's say... then he's safe. But then I doubt that GS would hire a negative public figure like him. That's just asking for PR nightmare. Either way, I think he's screwed. Karma... just a matter of time.