Jesus, this is moronic, enraging almost.
On a side note, perhaps we should all pay special attention to Jeffrey as he can:
"I can now double my money in as little as a month. With an investment as small as $32.00, I can get $64.00 in return, or with $100.00 I can get it to become $200.00."
Luckily, we can all get a piece of this remarkable man:
"Just send $1.00 for shipping/handling, and I will send it to you as soon as I get "
Google " jeffreybul23 jeffs success" (first link) to opt in now!
On a side note, I sold most of my holdings in XIN at 3.11 today. While I think that it is still a remarkable stock the near term looks too uncertain to keep on holding for now. Opportunity cost is too high. I have absolutely no doubt however that this will come back and encourage all longs to keep their position.
Jeffrey, sell and do so quickly. You have time and time again demonstrated that you lack the nerves and courage to have a large amount of your savings in one stock and I would recommend you to take action now before you do something really dumb in an emotional rush.
You clearly do not know nearly enough about investment theory and/or China to stay here any longer. How on earth can you invest your net worth in XIN and then alternate between cheers and questions like the above loaded with insecurity and distress. You should feel ashamed for toying with your families financial security like this.
Get off your lazy a** and do something within your qualification.
First of all let me assure you that todays conference call was not a game changer at all, in neither direction. Actually, it was rather boring and uneventful.
Whether XIN will see $5 in the next 12 months depends on a wealth of factors, the vast majority of which cannot be predicted with our information status quo. Do not listen to any of those that say otherwise, their predictions most likely have no legitimacy and are probably a shabby attempt to manipulate you.
I personally think that we are seeing institutions accumulate shares. If the current volume could be sustained, that would be tremendous.
The percentage completion method is not per se required under the IFRS and GAAP standards, rather it is an option next to the completed contract method which is generally considered more prudent.
The percentage completion method can only be applied if future economic benefits are certain which, depending on your cultural and legal sphere, can be subject to considerable interpretation. To take an example from the extremely prudent side of things here, in Germany you would only be able to apply the % completion method when the contract to be accounted for was closed with a public institution.
However I do not have an issue with XIN using the % completion method and I am delighted that they prudently decided not to apply it to their US projects.
Stan is correct Marcino, if XIN had used the completed contract method earnings would be considerable higher at this time of the year, however weak throughout the rest of the year. I personally dont think it make a difference for any serious mid to long term investor, at all.
Oh Ken, from what I see the premarket volume is 100... Could it be youre trying to put a twist on these measly numbers?
And yes, I agree that there could be a sell-off however you need not worry as that is just dumb money leaving. Earnings were within guidelines and absolutely nothing has changed about XINs strategic intent and long term perspective.
In fact, I am actually quite delighted on this beautiful morning.
While you process the above information consider that hagen is a short. All of his posts concern themselves with trashing companies, or talk about short positions of his.
Also, Stan is completely correct.
Jesus Christ this is painful. I actually had to mute for a moment to recover. The last time I heard this sort of questions was in undergraduate investment society, from first semesters who fell under the diversity quota.
If you decide to actively take part in an earnings conference call, however small the company may be, make sure that you have an intelligent and relevant question. No one wants to hear Gurnee lecture you on the obvious and giggle to himself, this is awkward.
And try not to sound like you are calling a phone sex hotline from your mothers basement.
Farvor, the correlation coefficient works both ways (hence correlation coefficient and not Oh-sweet-Jesus-we-are-sinking coefficient). Actually a negative coefficient would mean that XIN rises as the DOW falls (though discard that example because our above negative coefficient is a joke).
That aside, I do see your logic and it makes intuitive sense. The data does not support it though, but you need not worry as the data is often being a counter-intuitive #$%$.
However it is possible to isolate elasticity phenomena such as a down DOW blocking the magnitude of a price increase of XIN´s but we would need a ton more data, including intra day price points in significant quantity, to do that. Unfortunately we dont have this data and it is pretty much impossible to do/predict the analysis without it.
Oh, and can someone please quickly confirm that XIN uses the percentage completion method to account for its unfinished contracts?
I recently noticed some Einsteins complaining about the US markets dragging down XIN. Since I spent some time in a beige room with similarly interesting people today I bothered disproving that with some simple analysis:
The correlation coefficient (r) is a measure of the correlation between two variables where -1 indicates an extremely strong negative correlation, 1 an extremely strong positive correlation and 0 no correlation at all.
Discarding the disastrous first years of XINs US listing we start our analysis with 2010. This is a really small sample.
For XIN and DOW between 2010 and today r = -0.0792.
This means as one variable decreases the other increases, and vice versa, and so suggests XIN is actually a hedge against a weak DOW (lololol)! It should be noted though the correlation is extremely weak and probably completely arbitrary, a standard error, and most likely not statistically significant at any meaningful level. Its a joke.
Lets say that for some reason beyond our comprehension (or perhaps the US project, or mention thereof, or some sort of new liberal Chinese leader, or whatever) XIN and the DOW became more correlated. So lets take a look at the year to date (which is a ridiculously small sample, but whatever):
r = 0.0281
So, I hear you scream, "But John, XIN is like ULTRA - volatile can that be like a meaningful comparison??" and you are completely right. So lets moderate r for beta:
r = 0.187
More meaningful? Yes. Meaningful? No. Why is that? 1. The sample size is much to small, even smaller than a fiscal year. 2. Without testing it my educated guess is that r is probably meaningful at the 10-20% level of significance, so we have a 10-20% of making a Type 1 error meaning XIN and the DOW are actually not related at all in the above percentage of cases. 3. Even if the result is significant, the correlation is still extremely small and, oh yeah, the sample is much too small.
So rationally - No, the US markets or more specifically the DOW probably do not impact XIN.
Jesus, that was a horrible article. No news, no analysis and the authors unexplainable obsession with the word "company" - horrible.
Well, absolutely not my comfort zone. It might be worth noting though that "our" numbers are actually called Arabic numbers and originated in India, spread to Europe via the middle east. Could be China adopted them before Europeans did, at least what we refer to as Thailand today did...
Given that Europe was the, and forgive my ignorance here, light of the, at least military, world for the past few centuries and heavily influenced the Americas, Africa, and a large part of the Asian world I´ll speculate that this is how the dominance of Arabic numbers came about.
You can surely google that though...
On a related note, I once read that there is an african tribe that only differentiates between "one" and "many" and does not know numbers as we know them.
And heres the real brainteaser: .999(infinity) and 1 are in fact really mathematically equivalent. Same holds true for any other number and its preceding infinity.
As for the dice, Im afraid most of the time chances are I will be too drunk to reap my rewards should I finally get it right ;)
I think you are probably looking for input from a historian/philologist/sociologist/psychologist here, but for know I shall suffice.
From my perspective "our" whole numbers are the only ones that make intuitive sense, are called real numbers for a reason. To take a prime (ary school) example here, if you hold an apple in your hands you are holding one unit. Half it, you are holding half a unit, but not a whole. So, I hear you ask, why cant we use half an apple as a baseline? It is absolutely not intuitive, you would have to describe the single apple as two apples, and while that might still make some qualitative sense come back to zenos paradox. Suddenly you are holding infinitely many apples. Similar holds true for any other decimal baseline. Why your baseline cant be 1 is obvious and hence left to the reader to consider.
Hope my logic makes some sense.
Well, hmmm, the thing with the infinite half distances is called Zenos paradox. The mathematical solution/explanation of/to Zeno´s paradox is taking the limit of ex. x approaching value y.
How come you did not know division by 0 was undefined, but know Zeno´s paradox?
In fact, everything dividend by zero is unsolvable or rather "undefined", it is not an equation though, as there is only one side to it, but only a simple computation. On a related note, you might want to read up on L´Hopital´s rule which can enable division by 0 or other indeterminate forms when dealing with limits (even infinity).
If you want to win the round back from your friend, assuming he is not too well versed in mathematics, ask him if/why 1 = 0.999(infinity). Then you can triumphantly exclaim that 0.99... must be 1 because 1-1 = 0 and 1-0.99... = 0.00(infinity), which is the simplest proof of the above.
Or, since you are, if memory serves, a lawyer, you might want to formulate it differently so as to sound a bit more tricky.