When the company comes out of the halt the code gets changed. i.e. Yong from T12 to T3
So searching for T12's only leaves you with the non-survivors.
That's funny - you said the same thing about YONG on March 18, 2013 when it was T12 halted and the stock is up over 20% from then. Feeling luckier this time?
who are these clowns?
hmmm on this volume? So by that logic, longs let it drop to a dollar to pick up more shares for the long haul? yea I doubt that. You sure do seem pessimistic lately. Hope you're not turning into a Chazmo
where is the news? Geo abandoning short position? I would've thought they attack one more time to enable an orderly cover. This seems like more than just a short squeeze. Thoughts?
I'm trying to work out the numbers from the DCF model so maybe I'm doing this wrong - but the PV discount factor FY17E and FY18E were a little high if you assume a discount rate of roughly 11% in year 1 and then 21.1% thereafter. Also it looks as if share price was calculated using 37.8 million shares and I don't believe that is the correct number of outstanding shares unless you are assuming buybacks. Also they have mentioned dividend payments which would have to be factored in to any long run growth rate in terms of reinvested capital due to retention ratio. Not sure if that's part of 1% prediction.
A fairly thorough report but I have questions about how you discounted cash flows. The WACC seems pretty high at north of 21%. Cost of equity near 23%? This was figured using traditional CAPM approach? This must have an illiquidity premium built in or you're using market premiums(or a small cap premium) that are above any historical norm. I'm suggesting that WACC at 21% is very conservative and the sensitivity table should show a more realistic range of around 17-21 or so. And I don't think the sensitivity table is working properly because changes in the long-term growth rate should have more of an effect on the share price than what is showing. Also, imo, a 1% long term growth rate is on the conservative side as well. I appreciate the conservative nature of the predicition(i.e. better to be safe than sorry), but I would like to see more details on how you arrived at the critical assumptions leading to long term growth rates and the discount rate. Thank you for your good work.
Please divulge the name of this "local banker" so it can be confirmed. I too can pay someone a cheeseburger to say they heard the listing is still on. See how that works? I guess this is where you respond with ah ah ah and other various idiotic remarks
You're suggesting Fong would purposefully defraud investors and go off the grid for a mere 500K? lol ok maybe there's a temptation if we're talking 500 million, but 500K? get serious
What would be crazier is if Ironridge hired Geo to help them get more shares on the cheap. Or they were all in on it to take llen private at 2 a share and relist in Taiwan. Of course we could spitball conspiracy theories all day long. None are likely when you consider that jail time tends to be a pretty decent deterrent to such actions.
The report would at least appear more credible if they were less reliant on these so-called local villagers to purport their agenda. Obviously the SEC can't go after a "local villager" who was paid to lie in order to help Geo make millions. See how convenient that is? Gotta give credit to Geo - they did pull off a doozie. But that doesn't mean I'm going blindly fall for everything in their report like it's the gospel. And I don't believe Llen is infallible either.
Perhaps you're right. I'm guessing you are part of the Geo team since you know what documents they have and whether they will go the SEC. My point above was that citing local villagers and their conjecture is obviously not admissible evidence and frankly it's ridiculous to even mention it as supporting evidence.
How is it that Geo thinks that asking the local villagers the status of an asset counts as evidence of anything? They think the SEC would accept that as evidence? lol