I don't know, but his hedge fund was up about 1,400% while the SP did around 50% before he retired.
Carnes or Rogers?
But be careful, according to Lcbc they both could be bad.
You fall for the Carnes Scam or bite on the "smoking gun" bond?
There is a HUGE amount of money to made in digital sector in China, you just have to find the right horse. I understand those that state they will never invest in Chinese companies. I just see them as another investment that needs a little extra DD. Why shy away from an economy with over 1 Billion people that need pretty much everything?
BIDU is also based on VIE structure, just like FAB.
QCOM just dumped 150M in China's mobile space also.
"Too bad they ran and hid and won't answer anything anymore."
They are clearly hiding from all news, both bad/questionable and good. The 10K numbers were spectacular, far better than those that caused the share price to run from 3 to 11.
Somehow I suspect before they start trading again they'll start with the PR barrage and a Conference Call if they are smart.
I have plenty of questions, including the Kiosk License shutdown (even if for just one quarter).
"Now you are saying ABAT's insurance company DID pay out a settlement and they were a fraud. Which is it Joe... were you lying before or are you lying now? You and I both know that the argument of they must not be a fraud because their insurance company is defending them doesn't hold water. It is BECAUSE they are a fraud that the insurance company will tell the Plaintiffs to take a small settlement or get nothing when they are abandoned."
I said if the company turns out to be a fraud their insurance company will pay SQUAT.
A few thousand dollars as a nuisance suit to me is SQUAT....probably far less than one penny on the dollar when all is said and done....and that is SQUAT.
Why is it SQUAT? For the last time it's because the insurance company has a disclaimer for fraud.
Now you could go after the accountants, but they won't settle for a LONG TIME, if ever, because it make them look bad and is really hard to prove they were directly involved/or should have known.
Why did ONP's insurance give up 2M while ABAT gave up 275K?
It's because one was a straight up fraud (nuisance suit...so they got SQUAT) and one company was legit and the possibility existed they would lose a greater amount.
" If and when this opens I will be waiting with a order for more shares because i have seen the business model ."
I'm kind of with you. I bought in late because of the bond. My thinking was the shorts believed this was the "smoking gun" to prove FAB was a fraud and because of that were willing to short the price down to extremely ridiculous levels (below cash). I had my own theory (the cash would show up and FAB was legit), and bet on it.
But the halt has given plenty of time for many of us that would have moved on (if you trade for an event once it plays out you move one...win or lose) to learn about the company and it's potential.
At this point I think I know more about FAB and their business model than any other stock I own.
"They are probably going to be using the excess cash to defend against all the lawsuits ariseing out of the tradeing halt. If they lose the lawsuits they will also be paying settlement expenses. I am long on this stock also but don't plan to throw good money after bad."
The lawsuits are a nothing. ONP settled for 2M, which is the going rate if the company is NOT a fraud.
The insurance company pays for it (that's what insurance is for) and not the company.
Shorts just try to bring up the lawsuits to scare away novice investors.
Sometimes novice shorts (lbcb) bring it up because they are a novice investor and really believe it could have a material effect on the company.
If it is a fraud then the insurance company has zero liability and will settle for chump change if they are in the mode to settle for anything (which doesn't apply here anyway because FAB is legit).
ABAT's insurance company settled for a chump change (275K) and the lawyers took the deal because they knew it was a nuisance suit at that point (because ABAT was a fraud).
"That lie, yet again, Joe? You admit ABAT is a fraud and their insurance company paid out. Same with SCEI. A proven fraud and their insurance company paid out. And MANY more. The insurance companies are still required to pay the legal defense for ANY single management or BOD member that may not have been complicit in the fraud. Instead of paying the high legal costs they pay the settlements. It is also bad for business when they don't pay and accuse their clients of fraud. "
Geez, but you yap a lot. ABAT settled for less than a penny on the dollar (275K)...it's a nothing and was token gesture by the insurance company and accepted by the lawyers who knew they were going to get SQUAT in the end. I can't find SCEI settling for anything. There are currently about 50 Chinese Scams out there and if they'd paid a total of one million between them (their insurance companies) I'd be shocked. Once it's a clear case of fraud they just becomes nuisance suits.
The reason is because the insurance policies all have disclaimers for fraud. Otherwise you would see settlements in the 2M range (like ONP insurance paid out).
I'm not sure if you're intentionally lying about this point or just showing your novice side again.
Lbcb would tell you halting a security is "illegal" (he really, really likes that word) if done for other then legitimate reasons (like news pending).
That aside, the lawsuits are a nothing.
In fact, those most happy over FAB filing a 10K were the lawyers suing them. Why?
Because every insurance policy has a disclaimer for fraud. If FAB was a fraud their insurance wouldn't pay squat (and neither would FAB....frauds don't have money).
Now that FAB is legit the lawyers are ecstatic. In about 18 months they'll sit down and iron out a settlement with the insurance company that gives the lawyers a big chunk of money and the shareholders next to nothing. ONP settled for 2M, FAB's insurance company will settle for a similar number. Shareholders will probably get around .5 to .10 cents a share at most.
Shorts like to make a big deal out of lawsuits because it scares away novice investors.
To the rest of us they're a nothing.
CVVT. another Chinese company being sued for fraud (and rightfully so).
They hired Friedman about a year ago to do perform an audit when their previous auditor resigned.
One year passed and Friedman produced nothing.
Then they abruptly resigned.
"On May 23, 2014, Friedman informed the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors (the "Audit Committee") of the Company of its decision to resign as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm after substantial deliberation, effective immediately."
From this I take Friedman had no problem with taking over an audit of a Chinese company accused of fraud, but when all was said and done they walked away when fraud was discovered (IMO).
They did audit FAB's 2012 10K and started work on their 2013 audit (before being fired for refusing to offer up a letter to the NYSE for FAB before the completion of the internal investigation) so I'm thinking they are very familiar with both FAB and fraud in China and how it's pulled off.
Yet they never resigned from FAB.
BTW. CVVT scam was very basic.....they fudged on A/R. There is some value there, I just have no clue how much.
"I don't believe the bond was issued because Carnes mentioned it. I believe it because I saw the documentation proving it. I don't believe their deployed kiosks were pure fantasy because of anything Carnes said. I believe it because they promised to released a list "when translated" and couldn't do it. The entire premise of The Joe Scam is to blame everything on Carnes just because he is despised by so many. "
You're an idiot. The Carnes Scam you fell for had nothing to do with the bond. That was Goinvesting.
Carnes had three angles.
1) His kid investigators claimed they found pirated content on a Kiosk and so therefore all 16K Kiosks are loaded with pirated content.
2) The chick with the business card story claiming she had an office in the Joy City Store (later changed to they met her there) who claimed to be selling licenses for Beijing.
3) 99% of the 16K Kiosks do not exist because they could only find 20 and the company can not provide a location list.
That was the short term scam you fell for (nothing to do with the bond). It's all #$%$, it had no legs. 1 and 2 are just nuts and 3 is easily refuted by the fact (and Carnes knew this) that the 2012 Poxy he quoted and you repeated 10,000 times here did NOT apply to 10,000 of the 16,000 Kiosks. This was also clearly stated in recently released 10K (learn to read one instead of yapping/lying).
As for "illegal" bond which came later, it was never a secret to Zhang. All the docs were easily found with a basic internet search. If he was trying to be sneaky or a thief he sure was a bad one. I bought in when I read the story and did my own research. It was clear to me Zhang began the bond process before the acquisition (and a phone call to FAB confirmed it), meaning his collateral was his own personal property at the time he applied. My bet long here was the bond was no bid deal, whereas the shorts were positive it was the smoking gun that proved FAB was a fraud. The 10K cleared that matter up.
"Did Carnes illegally hide material information and fail to disclose a bond offering?"
I don't throw around the "illegal" term like you do, but clearly Carnes conned you into believing
his story. He knew FAB would be unable to produce a Kiosk list because the 2012 proxy did NOT
apply to 10,000 of them. Didn't stop him from throwing it out there and you re-posting his con here
about 10,000 times in the last 8 months.
"Did Carnes state a DEPLOYED kiosk count that was pure fantasy and did not exist?"
No, but he conned you into believing his story and falling for the Carnes Scam...see the above
"Did Carnes cease cooperating with the auditors when they asked to verify information instead of closing their eyes (plugging their nose) and having blind faith in what they were being given?"
FAB auditor just filed an unqualified 10K. Stop lying.
"Did Carnes lie and issue a "vehement denial" of the existence of the bond when in possession of the documentation PROVING it?"
That was Carnes story. Why do you continue to say Carnes is bad, yet post he scam here time and time again?
" Carnes is a nobody. I believe he is lacking in morals and ethics, but to accuse people of crimes without providing any supporting documentation is not right. "
Oh, stop. You throw the "illegal" term around every time you have a hissy fit. And why would you believe a story coming from a guy you state is lacking in "ethics and morals"?
"..since it appears you are either long or somehow connected with the company your standpoint is, well, biased as you are "hoping" that there will be good news that will restore order here….so far…NOTHING."
A few weeks ago it appeared FAB was going dark and would never file another SEC doc (like ABAT).
Then they filed their unqualified 10K and followed that up with a 10Q.
So to say they've done nothing recently is very disingenuous.
"….of all things to think that posting on this stupid message board could influence trading patterns, its entirely another thing to think it when a stock isn't even trading at the moment LOL"
First off, I believe without a doubt words have meaning and meanings sway opinions which directly effects investment decisions (short term). If it wasn't so those pesky SA articles wouldn't cause so much short term action.
The thing with FAB is....it could start trading tomorrow. Who knows?
If I didn't believe future investment decision were not being made by words on this board I wouldn't waste my time posting. To me this is NOT entertainment....it's work.
To repeatedly post FAB is fraud is easy, but to refute every charge our local nut throws out there is not so easy....it takes research.
Good luck trading....I'm sorry ABAT did not work out for you. No one wins all the time, especially in speculative stocks.
FAB has been on a winning streak the last few weeks the way I see it.
When they changed auditors things looked bleak indeed. The logic Lcbc employed to short this is faulty (the Carnes Scam), but sometimes you just get lucky. (just like Carnes thought he did with the bond). The shorts were clearly in control and all the posting of lcbc looked like they would come to pass (which is similar to ABAT which is way yaggs has some respect for him). Lbcb knows the playbook for Chinese scams, they've played out since 2010 so anyone that what to do a little research can be spot on and appear very knowledgeable to those that are going though it the first time.
But since then things have been looking way up. FAB is completely in compliance now with the NYSE listing requirements. Who would have thought that possible just a few weeks back?
So relax, the hard part is over. FAB is not going dark, they are flush with cash and very profitable.
It's why Lbcb is pushing so hard recently. Momentum is hard thing to counter once it starts up and FAB is currently on a roll.
The reason he complains about multiple ID's is he uses them so much he thinks everyone else does too.
I think he's talking to himself with carprob03 (ID made up about 10 seconds before posting)but I could really care less.
"The central thesis for Ibcb for the first 4-5 months of 2014 is that FAB would go dark."
I remember about 6 months ago I posted FAB would NOT go dark because that's what frauds do....go dark.
lbcb cut and pasted that about 1000 times implying FAB would in fact...go dark.
But one of his many rules of lying are....it's not a lie even if it's an opinion stated as a fact (FAB is a proven fraud).
I have zero interest in looking back through his 8 million posts. Last time I looked for 5 minutes and found the survivalist/hoarding posts.
I'm not interested in seeing what else is out there.
The biggest dilemma I see is the fact if a conflict arises between the US company and the Chinese company Zhang has a fiduciary duty to side with the Chinese one.
I don't see this as a big issue since most of the assets are in China and what's good for them right now is good for us....and probably will be at least another decade or so.
lbcb likes to yap about how VIE 's are just designed to steal US shareholders money but I just don't see it like that. The big money is made by staying listed and building a legit company (see BIDU). China has antiquated laws when it comes to foreign investors that necessitates VIE legal structures. When it comes down to it they want our money as much as we want a piece of their action. It's a win...win. Who wants to mess with that?
It's not like the US doesn't have their own crazy tax laws that forces company to think outside the box....see where APPL's cash is.
"Another plausible explanation for Ibcb's lack of a memory is that multiple persons are using that Ibcb ID. That's in addition to the collection of "chime in" short trading IDs we have seen on this Board. "
I never considered that. It would make sense, but my thinking is he gets confused because he tells so many lies he can't keep track of them.
Hopefully we'll here the results of the hearing this week.
"Bull. Even IF true, he knew at the time it was disbursed he could not pledge his shares as collateral and he knew it would be required to be carried on the books and properly reported."
Wrong again. That's why the " pledge agreement" was added to the new 10K, so Zhang could not do it again.
"The registered shareholders of FAB Media agreed not to transfer, sell, pledge, dispose of or otherwise cre
ate any new encumbrance on their respective equity interests in FAB Media, as the case may be, without DGC's prior written consent. Unless terminated at DGC's sole discretion, each Equity Pledge Agreement has a term of ten years and will be automatically renewed upon the expiration of the term. "
The fact you're wrong again doesn't matter, what matters is why the shorts were so aggressive. They thought the bond was the funding mechanism for the fraud known as FAB. They thought FAB would be delisted and go dark, just like you posted here for the last 8 months.
They've been throw a small bone now that FAB switched their business model (temporarily lowering revenues) , but they'll still pay a high price for being wrong.
=We've already seen youre price predictions about NQ with the auditor change.=
"Really? More made up nonsense from you. Show me my "price prediction" on NQ after the auditor change."
You probably forgot, but you posted this the when NQ opened trading for around 3.50 a share. It's clear by this which way you felt the market was going to/did react to the news. I didn't state you gave an exact price....what I stated was "price predictions"...meaning trends. Clearly you thought the trend was down (and wrongly so).
"How's that NQ investment workin' out for ya? Down over 50% on another. Nice call by you while I correctly told you they were shopping auditors and PwC would be didmissed in short order. It is amazing people want to keep believing the lying fools instead of the one who has been correct over and over."
"Unbelievable the amount of nonsense you spew. I can hardly wait for trading to begin. I have two predictions:"
We've already seen youre price predictions about NQ with the auditor change. Remember how you were ridiculing my long position when it tanked in the morning on the auditor switch news?
Stick to just lying and not making predictions (FAB will go dark). You have that down to a science.