it;s there for the viewing on the SGAS message board from 09/13 forward. It appears that rbt has no eye or notion for value. In my humble opinion he was low by a multiple of 6 to 7 times. Do not take my opinion, read the exchanges for yourself.
"IS it a buy out?
thanks for your explanation, rbt, I had thought you were really trying to deceive other viewers into purchasing shares to increase the value for your 25% bait and switch game. You really should look into some night course in english. It is very easy to mis understand you.
If you were to hypothetically extract the lng business from the income statement, there would remain $82 million in annual revenues. The construction loan would be gone and a goodly part of depreciation taken as noncash expense would also be gone. the operating expense, variable costs, associated with the lng plant would disappear. Net income would come in at just a little under $1 per share. Point is, rbt, the other four segments of the business have been carrying the lng, low-low margin plant up to this point. But a student of finance, like you rbt, know that value is prospective, eh?
What is share value with eps of $1?
just to test your measure, here, what do you think the vre(s) that own and operate the cng fueling stations are worth? I am looking for a number, rbt. You state "the other vre are not worth much." This would include the plant, the licenses, and the ng contracts in place. Any idea rbt?
so.... part of the cabal, eh rbt. Like I said at the sgas, and you bought. Thanks. How is the hvac going, must be a busy time of year for you, eh?
it seems that you fail to grasp that essential foundation of free enterprise capitalism. that is people are motivated by their self interest. Now if you will sell your house at one-half its appraised value.... then you have just made your case. (you shills are a little more than obvious)
ex Directors Yang and Ji are listed as defendants in court actions. If the BK judge allows for the resolution or indeed "decides" as mumbling rtb seens to imply, how do the obligations of mssrs ji and yang get resolved? It could well be that the BK plan inspired has more than one intended goal. The intended goal to "steal" the equity postion of the parent company CHNG in Ch 11 equity for debt, but also to negate any attachable American assets for either of the mssrs ji or yang. What a college education will do for these sons of proletariats.
you just misstated what I have said, rbt, (hard to imagine eh?) you are the one who stated they cannot borrow expect at usurious rates. Book value is book value, eh? It was you, herr rbt, who agreed that extension or modification of the loan was the prudent business solution, eh? I would appreciate rbt, if you'd stop this game of miss information that you play. It is quite obvious to anyone paying attention. Rbt. tell us the annual rate of interest that CHNG currently pays for the Pudong loans? Rbt, tell us whether CHNG has stated that they "disputed" the loans due from Abax, please? Cheap is relative, is it not?
you seem to miss the distinction between ch 7 and ch 11. Ch 7 the trustte takes the assets, he is the effective owner, for the liquidation and resolution of the bankruptcy estate. He has a fiduciary responsibility. If the abax boys get a relief from stay.... then they can take their collateral, but they have to prove a lack of equity for that to happen. Now the judge "giving" the vre's to the loan company sounds a bit more like a chapter 11, eh? (Plus, rbt, I have posted one of your so-called "predictions", so please spare us the repeated wallowing in the mud)
wrong. they have not yet established insolvency. In a chapter 7 the only assets owned by CHNG are the ownership equity or equivalent in the respective VRE(according to rbt). How, exactly will the "cash" of separate VRE located in PRC be converted from Renminbi to USD and transferred to the Trustee? Under what authority will this happen? It will not. How much will lawsuit 1 get? How much will lawsuit get? How will the separate VRE continue to operate in PRC with no cash? rbt.... you seem to live in a pretend world.
so..... then, rbt, this Yong, Li of Honest Best that purchased 3 million plus shares of stock in the latter part of 2013, he was just throwing his money away? Millions, just a naive auto dealer from the neighboring province in the PRC? Resident of the country of Canada and the company would neglect his interest? Really? Can you explain why Yong Li would buy those shares?
in response 5/30/13 to joshhyunc's question about Q-Ji offering $4.25 : "he could not raise than and probably not now
It will be a national company that buys out"
It will be a national company that buys out said rbt. Any explanation for your meandering statements?
If Abax was the creditor to a loan in default by a VRE located in Shaanxi Province, the correct route for the creditor was to repossess or foreclose their interest in collateral provided by the VRE for the security of the loan granted. It would have to be at the VRE level, because CHNG, the Delaware Corporation has no ownership in the underlying properties. (this according to rbtsherman).
So… why the InVol BK petition in the southern district of New York? Did the lender fail to perfect its security interest that is located in the PRC? Was there some flaw in the paperwork of the lending arrangement that required the New York connection for collection? After all, if Acceleration took place several years ago, the local repossession or foreclosure could have been long finished. The creditor would have taken the collateral and sold if for value.
This is the reason that a copy of the promissory note is so important. The obligor’s legal name and capacity in the note must be consistent with the laws in which the property is located and reflect a proper ownership required for pledge as collateral.
not the terms, rbt, the note itself. Terms are the components of the note. Did you see the note? Was the obligor a VRE? And... who signed it? Head of the VRE or Q-Ji CEO of the parent holding company that is chartered in Delaware, USA?
the default did not occur until some time after the Q-1 2012 payment was made. Do you have a problem in following the train of discussion? By the way, do you have a copy of the terms of the note? We would appreciate if you'd share.
I do follow these things. And you are right to ask, as the variations do take place from day to day, however, you'd have to be either an ignoramus or a deceitful practitioner of chicanery to believe that the facts re the Yuan to the USD are other than what I stated.
In Q-1 2012 CHNG expensed $505,940 in foreign exchange value loss to the operating expense of the company. This was for the loan payment made to ABAX for the service and amortization of the LNG construction loan. However, the value of the Renminbi to the USD had gone in the exact opposite direction. CHNG stopped making payments under dispute after that payment had been made. No formal information has been disclosed on this. A business analyst would think this entry in error or a charge that was falsely made by ABAX.
The value of the USD in Yuan was approx 7 Yuan per USD at the inception of the loan. The USD has fallen in the period from 2008 to the present day of only 6.25 Yuan per USD. In short, it should take less Yuan to pay the ABAX loan, not more.
the rate of interest they currently pay or paid to the Pudong Bank was in the 6.0% range. How is it that you can say that it is a "Facts...They can not borrow cheaply."?
Do you have an answer for that question? (just because you state it does not make it fact.... if you recall, the loan is disputed by CHNG.
We have figured out, rbt, that you are one of those booshidders, but please support your statement of Fact, or keep it to yourself.