ONP (possible scam)
- Thread starter m22au
- Start date
Just read Muddy Waters original and follow-up. Earlier I read the Street's rebuttal.
The Company also promised to follow up with its original rebuttal quickly with more info to contradict Muddy Waters (MW).
Even allowing for MW's sheer self interest, incompetence, and outright lies, the question remains, was it all lies?
I don't know the answer, but it is now quite plausible to me that the reality of ONP is only half of what it had claimed.
If there is no more substantial rebuttal than what we've had to date, that will be trouble for the stock. I would be reassured by: 1. a defense by the auditors (BDO Hong Kong--a good firm); 2. a defense by ONP of its capacity/production and customer identities (it has already defended the attack on its earnings--which is good if auditers hold up). 3. A further defense by Eric Johnson, the Street, and other "analysts" of the stock. It needs to be defended.
I'll watch the action today and sell if need be.
The Company also promised to follow up with its original rebuttal quickly with more info to contradict Muddy Waters (MW).
Even allowing for MW's sheer self interest, incompetence, and outright lies, the question remains, was it all lies?
I don't know the answer, but it is now quite plausible to me that the reality of ONP is only half of what it had claimed.
If there is no more substantial rebuttal than what we've had to date, that will be trouble for the stock. I would be reassured by: 1. a defense by the auditors (BDO Hong Kong--a good firm); 2. a defense by ONP of its capacity/production and customer identities (it has already defended the attack on its earnings--which is good if auditers hold up). 3. A further defense by Eric Johnson, the Street, and other "analysts" of the stock. It needs to be defended.
I'll watch the action today and sell if need be.
You would never suspect that this is another "pay for tout" stock scam, al la Dykstra. No way Crammer would let that happen...
No I don't think so. But some companies are more promotional than others, and that's what's happened. A small paper company in some fourth rate city in China really shouldn't be listed on NYSE anyway.
http://www.muddywatersresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ONP_MuddyWaters_Response2.pdf
2nd post by Muddy Waters . . . pretty much demolish thestreet.com guy, I think.
2nd post by Muddy Waters . . . pretty much demolish thestreet.com guy, I think.
http://www.kodakgallery.com/gallery...321803&cm_mmc=eMail-_-Share-_-Photos-_-Sharee
I guess these photos could be of any factory in China . . . but if they're from the ONP factory, that's not good news.
I guess these photos could be of any factory in China . . . but if they're from the ONP factory, that's not good news.
I couldn't load the photos, but I assume they're from the Muddy Waters report. ONP responded with more detail and photos of their own yesterday AM. They did a little bit better than I expected...in my opinion answering about 90% of the attacks of Muddy Waters. They have a conference call today at 10AM (I assume East. Time). ONP's photos aren't great, but much better than M.W.'s.
One accusation they did not fully answer, is that I think ONP had claimed to have six printing lines, and now they are demonstrating five (versus Muddy Waters short shill: "only one, maybe two").
I think the price reflects investor awareness that this is a legit. Chinese company, but smaller than imagined. Further, even 10% of accusations unanswered is a problem.
One accusation they did not fully answer, is that I think ONP had claimed to have six printing lines, and now they are demonstrating five (versus Muddy Waters short shill: "only one, maybe two").
I think the price reflects investor awareness that this is a legit. Chinese company, but smaller than imagined. Further, even 10% of accusations unanswered is a problem.