Fri, Aug 1, 2014, 8:22 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 1 hr 8 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

FAB Universal Corp. Common Stoc Message Board

joebigbuck 677 posts  |  Last Activity: 7 hours ago Member since: Jan 22, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck 7 hours ago Flag

    "FAB is responsible for "THE COMPLETE SETUP OF EACH FAB OUTLET".

    "FAB is the one that disclosed COMPLETE CONTROL of the kiosks from setup to content."

    Blah, blah blah....just state I fell for the Cares Scam.... at this point I think everyone understands it.

    That's all you're saying when you yap about the 2012 Proxy where FAB has control.

    How would FAB have control of the Kiosks mentioned in the 2013 10K...the ones the were sold prior to the 2012 PROXY?

    "Prior to 2010, the Company’s business model consisted of brand licensing and agreements that allowed for the PURCHASE and OPERATION of kiosks under the FAB brand."

    How can FAB have complete control when some operator is moving them around? Maybe they move them to where the action is....fairs, exhibits, concerts, ect. After all, they most of these were just basic ATM type machines. The sophisticated ones came later...and the 2012 Proxy applied.

    Why does it have to be nefarious that FAB couldn't nail those down in a couple weeks? It's was probably around 10,000. That's a lot of tracking to do.

    I give you FAB should have been more open with their description of the various Kiosks, but that weakness is what Carnes exploited (and why you fell for the Carnes Scam).

    If the cash exists then it was just semantics...not a big deal. They made the same amount of money, who cares if they have direct control of 6,000 or 16,000 of them? The cash comes in from the 16K, it gets accounted for and sent to the bank.

    And they adjusted the SEC filing to more accurately depict their Kiosk License business.

    So at this point what's the big deal?

    The Carnes Scam was the Kiosks don't exist so FAB is a fraud. Well, he was wrong.

    As for the cash..

    "For cash recorded at September 30, 2013, cash confirmations were received for five bank accounts representing 99% of the cash reported on Form 10Q with no exceptions."

    Friedman audited the 2012 cash.
    KCCW audited the 2013 + 2014 cash.
    Loeb & FTI is auditing the 2014 cash

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck 12 hours ago Flag

    "Biased accusation? Denial runs deep with this one. How about an SEC filing stating they did not cooperate with Friedman to confirm bank balances. Is that a biased accusation?"

    How about your lying runs deep?

    The only reason why Friedman did not verify FAB's cash in 2013 like they did in 2012 is because FAB fired them before they got started.

    FAB booted Friedman when Friedman told FAB they would not complete the 10K prior to the completion of the forensic audit Loeb/FTI is working on, which if not completed would have resulted in FAB being booted from the NYSE.

    FAB's cash has or will be verified by US management, KCCW, Loeb and FTI....and Friedman in 2012.

    Just how many times does it have to be verified to make a short happy?

    "Friedman was unwilling to express an opinion on the Company's financial statements PRIOR to the completion of the Internal Investigation and prior to the confirmation of bank balances at certain depository institutions in China."

    What was interesting to me is BEFORE the bond news broke Carnes stated on numerous occasions FAB"s cash could not be trusted simply because it was in China. It was a position he had to take (he knew the Carnes Scam was a scam), because he knew FAB/FTI would verify their cash soon enough.

    But after the bond news broke he was all in on verifying FAB's cash ASAP.

    Why the change?

    Clearly he bit on the "illegal" bond story, just like many others. Once that came out he was sure the cash
    was fake, it had to be or why else hide the bond?

    I have no problem with the shorts that bet on the that one.
    I almost bit myself before digging a little deeper.

    I expect the shorts to cover rapidly whenever FAB starts trading again. Pro shorts made a bet FAB was a fraud and the bond proved it. That bet was proven wrong by the filing of the 10K and further proof will come from Loeb. Pros will cover and move on, the event is over. What seemed like a sure thing turned into a trap.

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck 14 hours ago Flag

    "The only question now is which scenario is true:

    1) The license sales never happened and the cash never existed.

    2) Most of the licenses were sold to people who had no intention of deploying a kiosk. They used their licenses to gain access to content which they then pirated and never paid royalties."

    Or

    3) The license sales were legit as depicted in the recent SEC filing and the 100M cash verified by FAB's U.S.
    management along with three sets of auditors is real.

    I vote for #3.

    Worse case scenario for those that fell for the Carnes Scam or shorted on the "illegal" bond news.

    Haven't heard you yap about the 290 preferred shares lately. Good news, don't you think (well for shareholders anyway)?

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck 14 hours ago Flag

    Guru,

    "THE FACT that they REGULARLY CLAIMED (in both PAID PR and in OFFICIAL FILINGS) to have X number of INSTALLED KIOSKS.. or claiming to have "DEPLOYED" X number of Kiosks, AND NOW can't seem to prove their existence in the numbers they claimed... is what the issue is."

    What we know is after FAB was halted they shut down all PR/s, both good and bad. There is a ton of good news in the recently released SEC filings, yet zero PR's. So it works both ways. You can bet the Kiosk issue will be discussed in the investigative report and by FAB.

    But FAB did state this prior to the halt:

    "As of September 30, 2013, 16,820 licenses have been sold, of which 3,954 have been issued for the placement of kiosks in Beijing; all of the 3,954 kiosks in Beijing have been DEPLOYED."

    So they DID NOT back away from the Beijing numbers. They could come up with that number rapidly because they were all post 2012 Kiosks and the Proxy applied.

    Clearly the issue is the Kiosks sold prior to the 2012 Proxy...just as this states:

    "Prior to 2010, the Company’s business model consisted of brand licensing and agreements that allowed for the PURCHASE and OPERATION of kiosks under the FAB brand."

    Now one would suspect since someone bought and paid for a Kiosk they would have it deployed and out making money (hence the "deployed word in the previous SEC filings). But I doubt FAB kept records of each location (they have probably been moved around to various events) so was unable to produce a record of all 16K within weeks (things move slow in China and a partial record would have been met with skepticism).

    There was nothing nefarious about it, at the worst sloppy booking. No one cared, the money came it and it was verified.

    But Carnes made it a HUGE issue...stating this:

    "I am absolutely convinced that FAB's media kiosk count is fabricated and I believe that Chairman Zhang Hongcheng is actively covering up this fraud as best as he can."

    So began the Carnes Scam.......

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 31, 2014 12:01 AM Flag

    Maybe, I just think he lucked out.....or so it seemed at the moment.

    At the point he learned of the bond is the point he fell for his own scam.

    In his mind it was where the funds came to fund the fraud known as FAB.

    With it everything made sense. FAB was a total fraud.

    They shorted big time after that. They expected FAB to fold up and they covered for a few pennies.

    Imagine their surprise when FAB filed that 10K.

    Did you check out this from the last 10Q:

    " In May 2014, FAB entered into agreements with Shenzhen Tongzhou Elextronic Co. Ltd, and Xinjiang Broadcast Network Co., Ltd for digital TV and IPTV respectively. Shenzhen Tongzhou Elextronic is China’s leading enterprise in the digital TV industry, delivering more than 50 million set-top boxes for nearly 100 million viewers. Xinjiang Broadcast Network has more than 1.5 million viewers. Our goal is to have our Subscription TV network reach the majority of the households in China in five to ten years."

    Between that and this:

    " In January 2014, FAB entered into an agreement with People Video Culture Co., Ltd., one of the top three (3) mobile companies with 2 million users and 1 million paid users. "

    It sure looks like FAB is setting up various vehicles to push their own brand/content. I guess that's why they pulled back over 30M in deposits, they're going to need it to buy content.

    Maybe Zhang sold Rogers on his vision of the future. It never made sense to me a guy like Rogers would play ball with such a tiny outfit unless he saw enormous potential.

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 30, 2014 9:59 PM Flag

    "And Joe, Posters who don't have their heads buried in the sand are getting "worn out" hearing your "Carnes Scam" theories, as you dodge and weave away from basic common sense."

    The Carnes Scam is that the Kiosks do not exist and FAB is a fraud. I have no problem stating this or running away from the issue.

    A few idiots shorted on this belief, but the Carnes Scam was never intended to have legs. Carnes knew FAB had placed most of their Kiosks prior to the 2012 Proxy and based on his kids interviews there was no one in China who had a clue where they are were all currently located. He would have covered and lost his shirt if it wasn't for the luck of the "illegal" bond showing up.

    Clearly FAB's description of the Kiosks was lacking, it's what Carnes exploited.

    But from a simple bit of DD one would discover that 10,000 of the Kiosks were place PRIOR TO THE 2012 PROXY which stated this....

    "The licensee pays for FAB Kiosk and other equipment and fixtures while the licensor (FAB Media) is responsible for the complete set-up of each FAB outlet from the location selection to construction or conversion, remodeling and equipment installation."

    Now FAB should have been a clearer about the status of the pre 2012 Kiosks, but it never seemed like a big issue until Carnes made it one. Just a little bit of DD and one would have discovered his flaw.

    In his latest piece Carnes criticized FAB for changing their description/business mode when the fact is all they did was take his suggestion and make it clearer. There was never only one type or status of a Kiosk, that was the part of the Carnes Scam.

    This is from the latest 10Q...

    "Prior to 2010, the Company’s business model consisted of brand licensing and agreements that allowed for the purchase and operation of kiosks under the FAB brand."

    Pretty simple one sentence explanation that was in clear view with just a little digging.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 11:44 PM Flag

    Truth,

    Check out my share count cut and paste.

  • Reply to

    SA out as of Monday on Yahoo?

    by joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 12:21 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 29, 2014 11:42 PM Flag

    Guru,

    A couple points I'd like to address:

    I'm getting worn out reading the Carnes Scam repeated about the Kiosks count.
    The scam is if FAB can/could not produce 16K locations then FAB is a fraud.
    The basis of this is the 2012 Proxy where it states FAB is responsible for the placement and upkeep of the Kiosks.
    But Carnes knew there that 10K of the 16K total were placed BEFORE that Proxy existed. We had no idea at the time what the contract stated for the pre-2012 Kiosks....until the 2013 10K came out.
    I'm not going to look it up again, but it clearly states the License holders were responsible to buy and place the Kiosks in 2010 and going backwards (not FAB).
    I suspect this would have come out sooner, but then FAB did it's news blackout and we had to wait for 8 months to learn their explanation.
    My guess is it will also clearly be addressed when the independent eval comes out.

    As for the share count...I think it just went down by about 13M........

    (ii) upon the successful completion of: (a) all of the Corporate Governance Objectives for the four (4) consecutive and complete reporting quarters of the Company immediately following the Closing; and (b) a Revenue Objective requiring DEI to attain sales revenues of at least US$60,000,000 and net income of US$12,000,000 for fiscal year 2011, UEG’s designees shall have the right to convert the second tranche of 40 shares of Preferred Stock into shares of the Company’s common stock. ONLY THE REVENUE AND NET INCOME OBJECTIVES WERE MET.

    (iii) upon the successful completion of (a) all of the Corporate Governance Objectives for the six (6) consecutive and complete reporting quarters of the Company immediately following the Closing; and (b) a Revenue Objective requiring that DEI attain sales revenues of at least US$70,000,000 and net income of US$14,000,000 for fiscal year 2012, UEG’s designees shall have the right to convert the third tranche of 40 shares of Preferred Stock....IDENTICAL TO ABOVE (out of space!)

  • Heard this on another message board. My thinking is....about time.

    "I just received an email from SA stating that the will no longer be partnered with Yahoo Finance, which means that SA articles will no longer appear as 'news'. Full email below:

    Dear Contributors,

    As of next Monday Yahoo Finance will no longer be displaying Seeking Alpha headlines on its website.

    We've had concerns about Yahoo Finance for a while. Rather than a negative, we view this as major opportunity for Seeking Alpha, one which will deepen our relationship with our contributors.

    First I'll discuss why we feel the time has come for Seeking Alpha to part ways with Yahoo Finance, and then specify how this enables us to pay contributors more and increase the value we provide to our readers."

    The end part is just spin by SA as Yahoo was their main source of hits/views. It will also severely limit hit pieces like Carnes puts out because Yahoo won't pass it off as "news" anymore.
    The question I would have is why Yahoo is taking this action? Multiple complaints? SEC inquires? Clearly it was pure manipulation (both up and down). I'm not going to miss them.

  • Reply to

    Is Jim Rogers still on the board?

    by gumshoe_waldorf Jul 28, 2014 12:17 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 28, 2014 4:36 PM Flag

    I'm sure Rogers is still there.

    If he left FAB would be required to file a 8K. A change in Directors is a material event.

    However, it would NOT be a material event if he stayed with a new contract.

    It would be something a company would announce in a PR.

    But since FAB is only filing 8K's we don't know what his new contract entails.

    There is a hint of his status in the recently filed 10K.

    "DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

    The following table sets forth: the names of our current directors and executive officers, their ages as of October 21, 2014, which is the anticipated record date for our 2014 annual meeting of stockholders"

    Rogers is then listed with all the rest. If he was out it would have been listed under subsequent events and his name would not be listed here.

    As for Rogers $761,000 in pay, it's 99% worthless if FAB is a fraud since those options are priced 15% ABOVE the last trade. He's also loss all additional shares he purchased on the open market (30K I think).

    IMO Rogers is a big boy and knew what he was getting into with FAB and Zhang. A few bucks mean nothing to him or he wouldn't have walked away/retired from his fund in the first place. FAB's story is not over (and won't be over when it starts trading again), it's just in the infant stages.

    t

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 26, 2014 5:14 PM Flag

    This is from the latest 10Q. I'm not making a big deal out of it, as I suspect it just means they'll be paying BIDU to direct traffic to FAB's web sites.

    But technically, yea, FAB has or will have a "contract" with BIDU.

    Maybe being a "partner" give you a discount:).

    "Content will be offered for free via the Internet on destination web sites. The web sites are ad-supported through display advertisements on the site as well as advertising inserted within in the videos themselves. The Advertising revenue split is normally 50/50."

    FAB will partner with Baidu a leading destination web site for video. Baidu is the largest Chinese search engine with their video web side having accounted for over 75% of the entire network traffic distribution in China. The APP activated users has accumulate to approximately 100 million, with 20 million daily active users. Baidu also offers paid content packaging through user subscriptions for premium packaged content where FAB content can be included for a revenue share. "

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 25, 2014 2:33 PM Flag

    "You can do all the DD in the world and...."

    Boy, you hit the nail on the head there. Sometimes even when you're right you're wrong. NQ's recent bounce is proof of that. Those betting their auditor would resign/fired were right, and the share price took an initial hit. Problem was then it doubled.

    I also have a small position in BIDU, have had it for years. China's internet is just baby, maybe in ten years I'll sell it.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 25, 2014 2:29 PM Flag

    As long as you're keeping track....I sold my 1K of NQ today for a small loss (100 bucks). I plan on buying it back, but anytime a stock jumps 10% on some bogus news (dead cat bounce stock) I take the money and run. I will buy it back, as the reason I invested is still the same.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 5:32 PM Flag

    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.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 4:29 PM Flag

    "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).

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 4:23 PM Flag

    "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.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 2:40 PM Flag

    " 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.

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 2:20 PM Flag

    "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).

  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 24, 2014 1:50 PM Flag

    "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.

FU
3.070.00(0.00%)

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.