To Lihsus 00,
Your conclusion is reasonable except for one very important factor. Satyam is in India not in China.
"Chairman B. Ramalinga Raju admitted to inflating the balance sheet by more than $1 billion", if my understanding is correct, were Chairman Guo to do the same, he might very well lose his life. This is exactly what makes this seemingly mundane tale of greed, compelling.
I ask myself, why would our "good Chairman" who has (one can now safely assume) transgressed, continue to play with deadly fire. Why is he not being more careful, especially in public? What does all this fumbling indicate?
Is he a fool?
Fool? You don't rise to power and influence in China by being a fool. Words like ambitious, clever, shrewd, affiliated, and ruthless seem to be much more apropos.
Too Shakespearean, not high on my probability list.
Desperate and cornered?
Appears that way; however this condition might evoke a positive conclusion as we've seen over at Puda.
This is why I'm scratching my head, and believe there will be more surprises.
Since I've become a participant on this board, I, along with the other longs have been labeled. I have been told, I'm a fool, moron, bag-holder, schlub, idiot, retard and host of other disparaging puerile adjectives.
Most recently a poster advised me that I was delusional. Delusional, defined as, "a fixed belief maintained in spite of unquestionable evidence to the contrary".
Quite early on I began to suspect some sort of Guo
transgression. As to what that transgression might be, and how it will be ultimately handled, we to date have not a shred of evidence. What we have is the self-serving MW report teeming with allegation and its disclaimers.
No evidence, therefore by definition, no delusion.
You might call me foolish or tenacious for having held my shares, but this is my prerogative. If it turns out that we longs are vindicated. I promise I won't gloat and taunt. I will retire to the background far from this maddening crowd.
They lost but refuse to recognize the loss. It is interesting to watch the attempts to hide reality behind the wall of words.
It is much simpler (in my humble opinion) to recognize the loss and learn the lesson.
this is a news from 2009 where DGW was recognized as a Top 10 Water Industry Engineering Company.
Selection was based on the following criteria( Translated the top potion to english)
Engineering Company as the connection key to the chain links, and improve core competitiveness of enterprises in order to create fine works, market size, brand influence, technology innovation, industry reputation, makes top ten outstanding engineering company, leading the pioneer Technological innovation, optimizing industrial alliance.
1) technological innovation, which reflects the enterprises in technological innovation, knowledge innovation, the comprehensive capacity of the fields, but also reflects the competitiveness of enterprises.
2) the enterprise market, which on the one hand is the company's annual operating results, it also reflects the enterprise's position in the industry one of the important indicators.
3) brand influence, mainly companies in the industry influence and visibility.
4), industry reputation, which reflects the company's market acceptance.
DGW was 8th out of 10. i would imagine a company with no products and brand recognition would not be even considered to enroll. this makes me feel little better.
BTW, I know that it's hard to do sometimes, but try not to respond to jackasses. Some of those guys get off on responses, while others get paid for them. Maybe what I said will help. I used to get back at them four or five years ago and now they just go to iggy land.
That was me to whom you had responded. You didn't understand the meaning behind my post. I wasn't saying that everything would be alright with a new board and with Baker and MacKenzie reviewing what had transpired. I was asking whether or not they would be believed if they gave it the thumbs up. I don't think many here would have much faith in what they find, unless it explained quite convincingly what had happened and why.
You are aluding to a negative outcome and report; also, of which I believe would be the more probable at this point.
Let's take a close look at your accusation.
"So, you refuse to recognize that money most probably has been stolen from shareholders."
First your words "refuse to recognize" coupled" with "most probably" are vaguely "oxymoronic".
Do you realize laddie that this response is most impolite? You're not asking a question but making an accusation filled with assumptions. Stolen???
Yes and then your finale.
"It is not a transgression, it is kind of theft."
A transgression is the act of transgressing; breaking a law, command, or duty; sin. Again impolite and unfounded at this point.
You know Alex, it now occurs to me you were born to late.
You would have adored the French revolution