Time to move ahead w/ advanced molecular systems and IVD.
Time to show us what this company is really worth.
I'm sure they need to comply with the SEC, but we'll find out along with the SEC after the fact if they don't. SEC is not investigating or looking into the books of CMED, we are relying on CMED to follow the rules and hoping they are not putting up false fronts....
Read my msg on Violation of Securities Law. Since they are authorized to market ADRs in US mkt, they have to abide by SEC laws. I did report to SEC using the link I posted. May be if enough of us report it they might respond.
I doubt that. The US is just better at publicizing it (as scary as that sounds...) when it happens. Really, none of us are that familiar with what goes on in China since I doubt anyone reads their version of the Wall St. Journal. I'm sure they are working hard at closing any gap if one exists.
The distraction may be over, but the cloud will always remain. My perception of the China companies is becoming more and more firm that they list in the US, pump up the stock, and then figure out some way to raise a serious amount of capital at the expense of the US stock investor. CMED is doing nothing to change that perception.
CMED is not alone in having it's CEO enter into controversal (by U.S. standards) businesses related to their own business. LDK's CEO has started a thin-film solar business although LDK is a competing technology! I don't know how far this project has progressed because the price of polysilicon has dropped so much, it may actually drop below the cost/watt of thin film technology.
However, this makes CMED's CEO conflict of interest look pale by comparison. Apparently, China is 40 years behind the U.S.A. in addressing conflict of interest. But for now, it's not an issue. Unthinkable by U.S. standards.
i think there are two possibilities. one, management is extremely confident on the diagnostics business and didn't want to expend further money and energy on an unrelated business with no growth; or secondly, criminal/fraudlent behaviour. The latter gets you executed in china so in my mind is not likely.
What is suspicious is that the CEO took part of it (HIFU that is) private (bought for his own co. that is not public) -- why?
Is his strategy to use public money to develop and take it private when appropriate?