glad you are here, I thought you might be at the hvac factory today. So you were totally wrong about the value of SGAS, eh? Where do you think that your error in judgement was? Just curious, rbt, you are carrying the same sort of downplay on the value of CHNG (at least it appears to me) and if you could pin down where your "thinking" went wrong with SGAS, we might be able to avoid the same malady that you inadvertently wreaked on the shareholders of SGAS. What do you think?
who is it that gets over $7 a share and where does this $7 per share come from? If you are talking about the class actions, they will get nothing from CH 7, they have no sum certain claim, they are but a contingent liability that is contingent upon winning in court. Which they have not accomplished.
is that they generally claim that loss in value suffered as a result of a material misstatement of financial position of CHNG. Well as an owner and meticulous watcher since 2009, I perceived no serious misstatement of financial position. Indeed, the insider loans by Ji were in violation of company policy and he has admitted lying and paid the price. However the loans were repaid in full with interest collected. No loss was suffered as a result of the loans. The loss in share value was a result of Short Marketing of the horrors of fraud and default. Fear motivates American investors. And mutual funds have drop limits which when hit in a small cap market dominated by shorts puts a plunder to value. My point is that it was the shorts who feigned material misstatement of position who caused the drop in values.
Yet our boy rbt makes this statement re the lawsuits to gust1avo; "Of coarse the suit 1 and 2 must add what they want. How caN CHNG OBJECT"
So the lawsuits 1 and 2 will just add what they want, eh rbt?
If, I recall, you stated that the Judge would deliver the plant to the China Development Bank/Don Yang in his myriad of Bahama registered hedge fund speculators. Is that what has taken place? Do you know what a CH 7 is? Do you know what the Trustee does?
It is correct that you are right, your boy Don Yang steals the company from American ownership. And I suppose that you are happy and proud of that, but that makes you a bit of a sicko, eh rbt?
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.
and if you are talking about the warrants offer in the loan agreement, the $7+ is the warrant from CHNG to Abax that they, Abax have the privilege to purchase a sum certain of shares at $7+ (where Abax buys from CHNG by paying money to CHNG) over a certain period of time. that time I believe has expired. There is -0- value in those words at this date for Abax. Are you feigning the ignoramus role again or do you really not understand this?
They borrowed $40mil
They could always pay interest on the loan.
There is a significant return on investment.
You speak in terms of China, but who is this, the PRC? big difference.
In CH 7 class action suits get zero.
CHNG is not in just a bad part of China.
Suit one does not get $6 a share, they get nothing in a CH 7 liquidation.
How would an HVAC man in America know what CHNG assets were “worth nothing?” You do not know that the $10m in the city pipeline that was work in progress was “down the drain.”
I have had an order in all morning to purchase 3000 shares at $0.36. Strange how this desparado would choose $0.29 instead of selling for a higher price! Could this irrational market behavior be explained by some person in forensic accounting? The staggering incompetance, corruption, and indifference to this skam are an embarrassment to the country.
CHNG has "disputed" the debt making refinance a nonissue. Is that beyond your comprehension? CHNG has been borrowing in other VRE with rates consistent with PRC base of 6%. This is correct is it not?
If you have followed the sequence, you know it really makes no sense that the shareholder of this company are damaged when the fraud and ineptness from dealings with creditor are the sum total responsibility of management and directors. Think about where the responsibility lies. And it is their responsibility.
beyond your pay-grade rbt, but phase 2 and phase 3 have more substance in local jurisdiction, Shaanxi province than they do in a BK courtroom in southern ny. But then rbt, you have changed the subject, have you not? Jingbian's location in the Ordos and intersection of international pipelines not your strong suit, eh?
the follow taken from a bank of america analyst;
"The 30-year accord for 38 billion cubic meters a year (3.8 billion cubic feet a day) of supplies from 2018 by pipeline from eastern Siberia was probably reached at a price of $10.50 to $11 per million British thermal units, the bank said in a report e-mailed today. China, which consumes about half of the world’s coal, copper and iron ore and 4 percent of its gas, is set to become the biggest gas user by 2035.
The deal “establishes possibly the most important gas benchmark in decades,” said Francisco Blanch, the bank’s global head of commodities research. “If liquefied natural gas prices were to fall below Russian import parity levels several years into the future, the Chinese market would probably absorb them rather easily.”
Global gas markets will probably converge to the Russian export price into China, with spot Asian LNG cargoes likely from the Chinese floor of $11 per million Btu to the Japanese ceiling of about $16 per million Btu, the bank said. LNG supplies may rise by 18 billion cubic feet a day by 2020 to 43 billion cubic feet a day, an amount that can be “relatively easy” to absorb by emerging markets such as China, the bank said.
The Russia-China agreement will also set a long-term price floor of $4 per million Btu for U.S. gas as regasification, liquefaction and transport costs of as much as $7 per million Btu from the U.S. to Asia become a “key component” of Henry Hub pricing, Bank of America said. Demand from Asia will likely keep western Europe gas prices well bid, it added."
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.
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)
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.
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?
I wonder if "fast-times" Don Yang knows anything more about construction loans than our own boy rbt. This would add negligence on to breech.