Mr. Wu admits he feels nervous and helpless. Guess why:
"Are you brainless?"
Wow!!! Yucko schmucko sounds a bit angry. I don't recall Mr. Schmucko ever reacting to a post like that before!! I wonder if the hairs on his/her neck are standing erect right now.
:-) :-) :-)
Hmmm... There is zero chance that any of the directors of Yongye, including one of Morgan Stanley's own, would go after Kevin... On second thought, they do have 50 million vested interest... I don't think any threats are required. Just a little common sense. I guess when a shadowy HF manager gets pinned to the wall enough times his ego gets the best of him. Lol. BTW, Kevin you forgot to say Checkmate... again;)
Interesting link regarding the topic of SAIC vs SEC discrepancy. Sounds pretty common (both in terms of it happening for a variety of reasons, and also a common tactic of short sellers).
Richard, if you can get your hands on the SAT filing, and show it to be blatantly different, that might do a bit more for your cause.
Im missing the point on the tax number...the US SEC number of 10.9 million lines up perfectly with the difference between the total profit and net profit difference on the SAIC (483 million less 410 million for 73 million, converted at .151 exchange rate). Seems that works out. As for the 138 million "Total tax" number on the SAIC...I would guess that's inclusive of all taxes, including VAT, property, income, licensing, etc, etc.
Don’t you wonder why that thing saying Reveue above your domestic sales happens to match Yongye's SEC reported total sales?
BTW. I have just forwarded the link to your drivel to SEC investigative division.
There is a difference between expressing your opinion and manufacturing false evidence. I hear they do have native speakers of Chinese language.
I do recommend that you publish this. Then we might see a totally different wave of class action suits - causing financial harm. And you are starting to have a track record on it.
Have a good life.
kari: In order to file fake revenues in a jurisdiction that matters, all a grade B company needs to do is to set up a brand-new auditor in that jurisdiction. Unfortunately, that brand-new auditor is bound to "miss" a thing or two. Like hundreds of "missing" employees, for example.
Now, I want to thank you for supporting SEC's mission. My analysis has already been made public. Moreover, starting with my first "published" analysis, I have demonstrated that the SEC has failed, again and again, to fulfill its mission which is "to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation."
Umm, So 280M RMB were domestic sales (in China) and yet they paid 138M RMB in taxes? China does not tax world-wide income AFAIK, so why are they paying 49.3% of their domestic sales as taxes?
This document seems to make no sense just from that alone.
How do you explain those two numbers in such a way as to make the document make sense? How do you get to 138M RMB in taxes from 280M in sales?