I had a very interesting day. The national holiday, for the founding of PRC, starts on October 1. The three-day holiday extends to October 3. It is kind of the Chinese Fourth of July. This year, as always, Beijing declared it a golden week. What that means is the two days after the national holiday are moved to the prior two weekend days. This year October 4 and 5h will be on September 29h and 30. When they mean move it, it more than everyone will not work on October 4 and 5th but work on September 29 and September 30. The whole day is switched on the calendar. Officially and legally, September 29 is October 4 and so on. If you go in the bank and make a deposit on September 29 the paperwork will say the deposit was on October 4. The net effect of all this is everyone travels in China from October 1 to seven at the expense of working seven days straight the week before.
How does this impact Mogul-in-Waiting Caseysxyz you might ask? Everyone his Moguliness-In-Waiting makes money from disappears for a week. I am very busy trying to jam as much in before the holiday. However, I was very concerned about the heated back and forth about cash fraud at Xinyuan on the BB. I felt I needed to give some solid information to further the discussion. As part of my research, I pulled up Edgar to research carefully management’s trades since the IPO. That is when my day became interesting.
I am sure I was the only that did not know this. I feel like such a rookie smuck. I mean you people must be having a real good laugh at my expense. You did know that SEC initiated a review on this issue at 12/31/2010, the company gave some sound and well-reasoned answers and the staff closed the review without comment, which is the closest as you are going to get a clean bill of health from the SEC? I mean it was just me right that was not aware of the public record on this issue? You all were having fun to see how long you could get me to chase my tail, right?
Oh, I forgot to mention the holiday moving thing. Do they seriously actually change the dates of the days? Doesn't that create absolute record keeping chaos?
I'm just thinking about the nightmare I go through every April figuring out short and long term cap gains. If I couldn't rely on the fact that a trade dated October 5th actually happened on the 'real' October 5th, I think I'd go insane.
They are supposed to but some do not. They do what all good Chinese do when faced with an obvious error. They run away.
The Chinese just attack problems different. Take daylight savings time and time zones for instance. The Chinese get they use less energy when most of their activity is performed when there is sunlight. They do not get all the moving clocks and keeping track of time thing. There is just one time zone in China and no daylight savings time. People just adjust their schedules. About every six months office start opening up earlier or later depending on where they are at in the solstice. In the middle of the winter at certain latitudes, they make up time by shortening the traditional 2 hour lunchtime. To the Chinese it makes more sense for the people to change than to have the people change the clocks and do the record keeping required for time zones.
I didn't know there was such a review, either.
Let's start at the beginning: what kind of review are we talking about? It's certainly true the SEC can order a Cash Verification procedure (you'll remember I shared ZSTN's Auditor's resignation letter after ZSTN failed an SEC ordered Cash Verification in March -- I'll figure away around the LINKS problem if you want to see it again); are you saying the SEC once also ordered a Cash Verification for XIN?
I know the ban on LINKS makes this a mega hassle, but can you maybe copy the SEC's suffix on that document to this thread, so I can access it myself? I can get to the SEC site by myself, so maybe just everything that comes after "gov"? As far as I know, Yahoo's censors won't zap that.
You mention the SEC review "on this issue," after you said you were researching Insider trades since the IPO. Are those two topics related? If they are, the SEC's concern may have been whether the buying/selling Insider was in possession of "material, non public information." In other words, a concern about Insider Trading.