As expected, the Q1 results of Sino-Forest showed the Company has kept growing fast. CEO and Chairman Allen Chan continued telling beautiful stories about the company's achievements and future, but the subsequent diving in its share price has indicated that many investors see these beautiful stories as mirage.
Before this morning, I saw a likely fraud. After listening to today's conference call, I see the writting on the wall: most standing timber transactions were fabricated.
Why? Two points probably suffice.
1. Mr. Chan stated again that Sino-Forest sells standing trees and thus no issue of quota limitation. But the business model, which he talked in detail, clearly shows the buyers CUT down trees and sell them to end users. Therefore, the quota limitation issue still stands firmly.
2. Mr. Chan said that standing trees are sold to AIs (Authorized Intermediaries), and AIs will pay taxes including corporate income taxes for Sino-Forest's BVI companies. Unless Sino-Forest has organized a massive tax evasion scheme participated by Chinese officials in taxation, there is NO way for the Company to transfer its subsidiaries' tax obligation to the so called AIs.
Apparently the question now is not whether there is a fraud, is how big the fraud is.
Stories are ending!
Agreed. The stock is pretty much worthless, as it doesn't take make for its intrinic value to equal zero.
ReplyDeleteSino-Forest is so openly talking about the AIs paying their taxes and James you are saying that it is just impossible for that in China, then the question is what the hell is E&Y 's auditors doing?
ReplyDeleteI would like to believe that a firm like E&Y has resident China tax experts. Are they consulted on this file?
I am flabbergasted.
I wager that Ernst and Young is in collusion and liable (morally so, hopefully legally too).
ReplyDeleteJust do some digging and you'll know what I mean.
Really "meaningful" digging and results will only be able to be done with the power of the Law, in Canada and China.
ReplyDeleteRemember the partner in charge of Enron's file at Arthur Anderson? It would be ironic if history repeats itself here...... Big 3 anyone?