Sat, Aug 2, 2014, 3:15 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

FAB Universal Corp. Common Stoc Message Board

joebigbuck 213 posts  |  Last Activity: 12 hours ago Member since: Jan 22, 1999
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 3, 2014 6:16 PM Flag

    I don't the SEC allow them to. Previously they had knowledge of the internal investigation that you didn't and now they have knowledge of the audit that you don't.

    If they loaded up now, right before the 20F filing, they'd be crucified by the SEC.

    Would you be happy if insiders were allowed to buy right before they announced a record quarter or sell right before bad news? Its the same thing.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    NQ pulling a FAB

    by lbcb321 Jul 3, 2014 9:16 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 3, 2014 2:41 PM Flag

    "NQ quit cooperating with their auditor so they are shopping for a new one they can pay an exorbitant amount of money to in order to get them to look the other way."

    Why do you lie so often? It's not like no one notices.

    I'm clearly not happy with NQ's action today, but I've read no where that they're considering switching auditors.

    NQ is very speculative play, as I posted when I bought a very small amount of (for me...1K) shares the other day. If it hits, it will pay a 3 figure return (and rapidly) but the downside is the entire investment is at risk (and rapidly). I would encourage no one that does not understand the risks to put a penny there.

    NQ is a puzzle at the moment, at least for me. It has clear signs of being a fraud, but there is just as much if not more information indicating it's legit (which is why I took the leap).

    As for you posting making a few bucks really that important to you?

  • Reply to

    what are the chances this trades again?

    by new2game82 Jul 2, 2014 3:38 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 6:04 PM Flag

    85%....OK, fine.

    But if they bring the 10K, Q1 10Q's and the results of the internal investigation to the hearing they'll not only stay listed but will start trading the next day....100% on that one.

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 5:47 PM Flag


    It takes all kinds to make up a message board.

    Good luck with your investments.

    ":.....I suppose its really going to come down to just how much they are able to sue FAB for...and, it this ends up being anything like ABAT, well, this could take years to settle."

    ABAT is/was a fraud. It's not comparable to FAB. If you want to see how the lawsuits against FAB will play out check out ONL.

    "On August 6, 2010, a stockholder class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and Roth Capital Partners, LLP. The complaint in the lawsuit, Mark Henning, et al. v. Orient Paper et al., CV-10-5887 RSWL (AJWx), alleges, among other claims, that the Company issued materially false and misleading statements and omitted to state material facts that rendered its affirmative statements misleading as they related to the Company’s financial performance, business prospects, and financial condition, and that the defendants failed to prevent such statements from being issued or corrected. The complaint seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and experts’ fees. Plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of themselves and a class consisting of the Company’s stockholders (other than the defendants and their affiliates). The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on January 28, 2011, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss with the court on March 14, 2011. On July 20, 2011 the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss, thus allowing the litigation to proceed to discovery. On June 21, 2012, the Company reached a proposed settlement of the securities class action lawsuit with the plaintiffs. The terms of the proposed settlement call for dismissal of all the defendants from the action in exchange for a $2 million payment from the Company’s insurer."

    BTW, the lawsuit against FAB is just a cut and paste job of the Carnes Scam.

  • Reply to

    what are the chances this trades again?

    by new2game82 Jul 2, 2014 3:38 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 4:05 PM Flag



    I'm going to say at this point (the 10K being filed...which they paid 470K for a months worth of work) it's
    a 95% probability it will open on the NYSE at some point. That's up from about 30% before last week (the 10K being filed changed the odds dramatically since that is the reason they were being kicked off the exchange).


    1% pink.

    So the exchange is pretty much set, but the time frame is up for grabs. It could still be as long as 6 months, but my bet says it opens within 30 days (and the internal investigation results are released).

    The really good news is while this has been halted the company has being moving forwarding at a brisk pace (40%) and generating tons of money (50M last year). At this point the numbers are almost unrecognizable from when it was halted....and they still have two quarters to post to get up to speed.

    I'm sure before it opens the company will release updates so we all know where we stand in regards to value.
    It would not be fair to shareholders to open this up without those updates. How are you suppose to value something when you're looking at 6 month old numbers (Q4 2013).

  • Reply to

    FAB wonderful group blog

    by hiflyer246 Jul 2, 2014 1:04 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 2:43 PM Flag

    The bottom line is FAB is growing and growing rapidly. Hopefully Q1 and Q2 numbers show the growth story continuing. I expect the Loeb report prior to July 16th. I think they pushed back the hearing date as far as possible with the expectation they would either present a 10K or Leob report. They got the 10K, now let's see if Loeb comes through.

    This is all starting to come together nicely.....sure would hate to be short right now (my how things have changed around here).

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 2:33 PM Flag

    Why do you continue to post the exact details of the Carnes Scam, and then follow it up with didn't fall for it?

    The addresses are a nothing, always were and are. The "chick with the business card" was bogus, that was just Carnes elaborating on some girl his kid investigators spoke to. The pirated material was from a couple Kiosks out of 16K.

    But Carnes knew FAB could NOT provide address for the pre 2012 Kiosks because FAB never sold them. They sold licenses and who knows where they were placed (10K of them). This was great short term scam for Carnes, because most would fall for the language he posted from the 2012 Kiosk agreement (where it stated FAB was responsible for placement and upkeep of post 2012 Kiosks (6K)).

    Carnes knew this was as short term scam, as eventually others would figure out the 10K and 6K were not the same Kiosks. But then, his hit piece was not designed to have a lasting effect. Only when the bond showed up did it become a long term project.

    So keep believing in the Carnes Scam. There are always consequences for being wrong in life, and in investing the cost is money. Soon enough we will see just how much your undying belief in the Carnes Scam will cost you.

    5 dollars a share in cash, 1 dollar a shares in earnings for 2013, 40% growth rate and unlimited potential...yup, that's a one dollar stock if ever I saw one:) better hope Carnes has a least one more scam up his sleeve when it comes to covering. There's 3 Million shorts out there stuck just like you.

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 2:04 PM Flag

    "If they would have cooperated with the original auditor they could have filed on time. "

    More stupidity from you. What's with all the cut and paste on the meaningless parts? Why did you skip the only meaningful sentence....

    You know, the one were Friedman told them very clearly they would NOT offer and opinion letter or complete the 10K prior to the completion of the internal investigation.

    Of course they stopped cooperating with them after that....what, you expect them to continue to waste their time?

    They moved on, found another auditor that had enough confidence in their own work to do the job, and cooperated fully with them (see the new 10K as a result).

    So stop lying and twisting because you're a scared short who fell for the Carnes Scam.

    BTW, have to love the number in the new 10K and the future possibilities. I can see why you're in panic mode.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 5:33 AM Flag

    =did not get the extension because their auditor would not offer up an unqualified opinion letter

    Why do you keep blaming "the auditor"? Can't you read? The auditor couldn't complete the audit because FAB was not cooperating with them. It is a simple cause and effect. FAB didn't cooperate so the auditor could not complete the audit. It isn't the auditor would not give an opinion so FAB couldn't file. The auditor can't form an opinion if the company does not cooperate in completing the field work to gather the information on which to assess an opinion. I have also shown you the proof that an "unqualified auditor opinion" does not apply to a small filer like FAB. It only applies to an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer so once more you are spewing fantasy that is not supported by fact."

    You want to take all that back? Or just continue to look stupid?

    FAB's previous auditor stated very clearly they would NOT offer an opinion letter (nor complete the 10K) prior to the completion of the investigation. Nothing to do with FAB, the SEC, or NYSE rules. Just their way of doing business and perfectly within their right. Just like it was FAB's right to show them the door. FAB was clearly cooperating with everyone (both auditors and the forensic investigation) in a desperate attempt to stay listed. They paid a high price (470K plus probably around 1M for the forensic) but if it keeps them listed it will be worth it. Your ""unqualified auditor opinion" just highlights your ignorance. FAB's 10K received an unqualified auditor opinion, as I've already posted numerous times.

    Pretty spectacular numbers in the 10K, huh?

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 5:22 AM Flag

    "It sure looks like the Enforcement Division of the SEC has an investigation ongoing."

    Shorts post #$%$ like this all the time in an attempt to scare longs into selling. It's along the lines of "going bankrupt tomorrow, CFO just resigned, world's ending....blah, blah, blah.

    But I have to give you credit, no one but you is stupid enough to follow up their attempt at starting a rumor with this comment.....

    " Unlike you, I clearly demarcate opinion from fact and don't spread nonsense and baseless rumors. "

    Are you kidding me? Really? You just attempted to post some nonsense rumor and then follow it up with that comment? Are you just asking to be put away? Was this just an attempt at humor?

    Reminds me of the last time you stated you never lie, then lied twice within the same post. Sometimes I wonder if you even read what you post before hitting the POST button.

    Here's a hint if you want to know if the SEC is investigating a company. Send them a FIA request and see what comes back. If there's an investigation they'll deny the request. I'm sure Canes sends them one every week.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Difference between FAB and NQ 10-Ks

    by lbcb321 Jul 1, 2014 2:32 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 4:16 AM Flag

    No one has been delisted for lack of internal controls.
    lCBC is confusing requirements for the" independent auditor" with the "audit committee".

    The NYSE, under listing requirements, requires the independent directors of a listed company to annually report the status of their internal controls. That is why it is in FAB's 10K. Because they restated two quarters because of the bond they were forced to admit their internal controls were lacking. Now if FAB left it out, that would be a reason to delist them.
    Under SEC rules, if a company has a market cap over 700 Million (hopefully FAB next year) then that company is also required to have their Independent auditor write an opinion concerning their internal controls.

    Companies have been booted for not complying with listing requirements...... it usually starts with the independent directors resigning and then that creates a host of violations,,,,, lack of internal controls being just one of them.

    When the independent investigation comes out it will have recommendations to correct their internal controls. They will be incorporated into FAB's bylaws and you'll see the disclaimer removed in next years 10K. Shorts try to make it sound scary... just like the VIE structure.... but it's really just boilerplate language that goes along with restatements (very common).

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Friedman LLP Gone As Accounting Firm

    by lbcb321 May 7, 2014 11:10 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 12:30 AM Flag

    "You and Joe kept claiming they would file for sure. Only frauds go dark. I correctly told you the multiple reasons why they would not file. The attorneys would advise against it and it was highly unlikely their auditor would sign off on it with the allegations out there. Instead of just saying, "you were right"... you need to twist it when I merely pointed out there was an 8-K to read."

    Don't you just hate it when you're completely wrong and truth and I are completely right?

    Tell me again about those "multiple reasons" why FAB will never file their 10K. I could just dig up your prior posts where you tried to convince shareholders to sell at the first available moment (for their good of course, nothing to do with you being short) but I think it would be good for your psyche if you did it yourself.

    Maybe at some point you'll realize you did in fact fall for the Carnes Scam (FAB is a fraud) . I think it will help bring that fact up from your subconscious to you conscious (and catch you up to speed with the rest of us) if you just repeat after me....

    Try chanting it while you're practicing putting....I think it will help you're putting, too.

    I fell for the Carnes Scam......

    I fell for the Carnes Scam.....

    Geez, but fell hard for the Carnes Scam....

    There, now don't you fell better?

    Hey, did you know my Dad was the youngest to win a PGA tour event (16). Not in the books anywhere, unless you know where to look. Really before the PGA, but what the heck, the best players were there and he won. I taught my nephew how to play, he's on tour. I suck (well, compared to them, probably not you)...but that's another story.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 2, 2014 12:06 AM Flag

    "I have also shown you the proof that an "unqualified auditor opinion" does not apply to a small filer like FAB. It only applies to an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer so once more you are spewing fantasy that is not supported by fact."

    Geez, but you are either an idiot or really bad liar. Stop cutting and pasting SEC words/docs that you either do not understand.or intentionally twist and lie about because...well, you're a scared short who fell for the Carnes Scam.

    FAB received an "unqualified audit". It was glorious to see, don't you think? Being a complete idiot you post some nonsense about "accelerated filers" that has nothing to do with financials and does not apply to FAB. Let me break down what you read since you'd just lie about it even if you did understand it.

    FAB is NOT required to have their auditors offer up an opinion regarding their internal controls because their market cap is under 700M. Not good, not bad, just not required. But FAB received from their auditor a complete "unqualified" 10K. Hopefully NQ follows suit. If their market cap was north of 700M then they'd need an opinion on internal controls. Stop lying and twisting implying that FAB hid something or their 10k is "watered" down.

    Doesn't matter where you shorted (before, during or after the first hit piece). The Carnes Scam is that FAB is a fraud (see the story about the chick with the business card). You fell for that hook, line and sinker and repost your belief in it in nearly every post. How am I wrong about that?

    "In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present fairly, IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS, the consolidated financial position of FAB Universal Corp and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2013, and the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

    /s/ KCCW Accountancy Corp.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 7:00 PM Flag

    "Why did they ask and get an appointment with NYSE listing requirements team ? "

    Because FAB is/was doing everything in their power to stay listed. That's what legit companies do. Once they filed the restatements the 10K filing was just a matter of time. The only question was would they get kicked off the NYSE before they could get the forensic audit and 10K completed.

    LCBC has been stating for 7 months now FAB would go dark and not file another report. He clearly stated their attorneys would never in a million years allow them to sign off on another 10K. That would make them personally liable, because last year Zhang might have put one over on them, but this way. They would become personally liable. He posted about 1000 times here this would prevent it from happening. The only thing he did not figure out was FAB was legit from the get-go and it he had fallen for the Carnes Scam.

    "We, Christopher J. Spencer and John Busshaus, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of FAB Universal Corp on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report of FAB Universal Corp on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of FAB Universal Corp."

    Of course, he thinks posting the same stupidity and lies multiple times makes it the don't expect him to own up to his posts.

    His problem was always he fell for the Carnes Scam and believed FAB was as fraud. He took that as a premise and ran with it. Now he just looks like any other scared short on the wrong side of a trade.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I call this the Zhang Bond Doctrine.......

    by joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 1:15 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 6:41 PM Flag

    "This is why investing in a VIE is a losing proposition. In the real world, Zhang would have been dismissed immediately..."

    Ah, this is the real world and if the numbers FAB posted keep growing at the rate they are I say we give Zhang a 16M bonus. He's more than earned it. 5 dollars a shares in cash, 40% growth rate, 1 dollar a share in earnings, deals with BIDU and China Unicom on the table. Are you kidding me? Zhang has been one busy camper while this has been halted. This 10K was spectacular news for shareholders. Only a scared short (who fell for the Carnes Scam) would think otherwise.

    Can't wait for the investigation, Q1 and Q2 numbers to be released. How about you? You going to wait for the next Carnes hit piece about the "chick with the business card" to cover or just fight with the other 3M shares short to cover at the open (good luck with that one).

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Comparison between Fab and NQ

    by vvrm Jul 1, 2014 1:15 PM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 6:34 PM Flag

    Of course, they're common and all over the place....proving once again LBCB is an idiot. FAB was up for delisting because they did not file a timely 2013 10K and did not get the extension because their auditor would not offer up an unqualified opinion letter....nothing else. I've posted the SEC filing here detailing it. Doesn't deter him from more lies, but it's what you would expect from a desperate short.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I call this the Zhang Bond Doctrine.......

    by joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 1:15 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 4:42 PM Flag

    "More nonsense. The bond was a bonus. It wasn't even revealed until most shorting was done. I shorted without any knowledge of the bond. It isn't even built in as the stock was halted before the bond was confirmed."

    The bond was a bonus to those that fell for the Carnes Scam. They would have been burned eventually without the bond because FAB never would have been halted and would have posted 3 blow out quarers of earnings by now. To Carnes, FAB was a short term play. You clearly lucked out,, as Carnes and GOinvesting would have been in the process of covering instead of shorting more if it wasn't for the bond. The only idiots short left holding the bag would have been those that fell for the bogus Carnes Scam. Doens't matter at this point becasue you're all stuck.

    As for the 10K "pledge"'s new and you're wrong. You have no idea how many shares Zhang pledged so you have no idea if he violated any past agreement. The NEW "pledge' agreement was put in to asure shareholders this issue would never come up again. I call it the Zhang Doctrine. It's all encompassing, unlike the last one. Seems appropritate to me.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    I call this the Zhang Bond Doctrine.......

    by joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 1:15 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 12:28 PM Flag

    This is exactly the language from the 10K regarding the bond:

    "The bonds are secured by a PLEDGE of shares in a company that does business with the Company, a certain real estate asset owned by a third party and are guaranteed by the Company’s Chairman. Interest is paid annually on the anniversary of the bond. The bond is due in full upon maturity on April 25, 2016. "

    This was newly added to the 10K this year:

    "The registered shareholders of FAB Media agreed not to transfer, sell, PLEDGE, dispose of or otherwise create any new encumbrance on their respective equity interests in FAB Media, as the case may be, without DGC's prior written consent. "

    So FAB addressed this issue directly, where as before clearly Zhang thought he had the right to raise funds by PLEDGING his shares as collateral (or he wouldn't have done it)."

    Why would they add it if it was so clear already what Zhang did was Illegal or unethical?

    Bottom line is the shorts who believed the bond was their golden ticket to riches (proving FAB was fraud) are now stuck. The idiots like yourself, who fell for the Carnes Scam, were always stuck. Now you just have a lot more company.

    And like I said, I know of no other company that has language like this in their bylaws or anywhere else.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Wow...I was wrong! eom

    by shockexchange101 Jun 30, 2014 11:29 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 10:53 AM Flag

    You want to be a hero? Post your trades in real time. I have no clue why anyone not selling something would want to brag, but if you want to impress anyone on message boards that's how you do it.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    The bigger picture...

    by lbcb321 Jul 1, 2014 10:22 AM
    joebigbuck joebigbuck Jul 1, 2014 10:49 AM Flag

    "The merits obviously indicate FAB is not in compliance with required corporate guidance regulations regarding internal controls and they have not successfully defended against serious allegations even though they have had over 7 months to do so."

    Stop acting like FAB is the only company on any exchange that has had to restate earnings. The exchanges are full of companies that restate earnings for one reason or another. GAAP is not a science, it's more of an art in my book. Everyone's got an opinion. So what would be the alternative? The death penalty for any company that makes a mistake? Be reasonable. There has to be some format/system for companies to admit and correct mistakes without such dire consequences. FAB is following the rules, even the unwritten one that states any Chinese company accused of fraud has to spend a million dollars defending itself (major forensic audits), the best they can. In the meantime you have to give them an incredible amount of credit for being able to stay focused on their main task (running the business and making money).
    Pretty incredible numbers posted for Q4, can't wait to see Q1 and Q2.

    Sentiment: Hold


Trending Tickers

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.