The attention for the “Singapore Squeeze” (Financial Times) Glaucus vs Minzhong seems to wane. Probably good, since a lot more is happening in the world these days. Still some observations:
A good article can be found here, comparing the Glaucus vs China Minzhong case with the Muddy Waters vs Olam case.
Some more background of the situation in China can be found here.
"SIAS calls on regulators to punish short sellers", article in The Business Times.
"The heavy weight of the law must be felt by these mischievous perpetrators,” said SIAS President and Chief Executive David Gerald"
(SIAS is more or less the MSWG of Singapore)
Strong words, but the reader probably already know that I completely disagree with this argument. If people buy shares, convince others about their investment case (using subjective or even wrong arguments) and subsequently sell their shares for a tidy profit, that is exactly the same. And if those people would be prosecuted, countries better build a few more jails, since this is happening every day of the year in every country of the world.
In addition to that, Glaucus was very transparent about their interest, and their arguments were backed by a lot of data and arguments. One might not agree with some, but that is something else.
"The SIAS said yesterday that it has had meetings with China Minzhong and is satisfied the company has “vindicated itself”."
I find that a bold and rather naïve statement, I think to give such a definite answer much more work has to be done to give such a definite answer. Somebody on the Valuebuddies forum mentioned:
"China Aviation Oil, ACCS, HongXing and Jurong Technologies had been awarded Transparency award by SIAS and many investors had been hurt by investing into these companies. How many more of such useless awards does the Singapore market need to see before such awards are stopped?"
In my previous posting "And Glaucus responds ...." I wrote several times that it looked like Minzhong admitted that certain things were not in order.
Associate professor Mak Yuen Teen from the NUS Business School puts it more specific in a letter to The Business Times (emphasis mine):
"Is China Minzhong saying it keeps 2 sets of books?"
"China Minzhong has provided a succession of rebuttals to the allegations of US-based short seller Glaucus Research Group, including highly detailed ones on Sept 1 and 3, complete with extracts of source documents. Although its efforts in rebutting the allegations are commendable, they are unlikely to completely dispel the concerns raised by Glaucus. The source documents provided by the company can understandably provide only a partial picture of the true situation.
While the company has cited the fact that it has consistently received clean opinions from its external auditors and that the auditors have not withdrawn their opinions, the auditors themselves have been silent. Given the well-known challenges faced by auditors in China and the fact that all of China Minzhong's business is conducted through subsidiaries there, the auditors may be reluctant to bet their partners' bonuses that the allegations of Glaucus are totally without basis. It is likely that only a comprehensive special audit will be able to dispel all the concerns raised by Glaucus, but we cannot realistically expect a company to commission a special audit each time allegations are made about its financials.
Unfortunately, China Minzhong's latest announcement on Sept 3 contains statements that may not help its cause in dispelling concerns. It stated that "Glaucus's assertion that documents that are publicly available are more reliable than those not in the public domain is flawed. The public information was not obtained independently by the regulators but based on our filings. Where there is inconsistency in information, it is only logical to look to the source documents to verify the truth . . . for SAIC (State Administration for Industry & Commerce) filings, given the purpose and intention of such filings, the key consideration is to ensure that the company operates within its permitted business scope and duly informs SAIC of changes to its registered particulars". It stated that it places great emphasis on the accuracy of accounts which affect its tax liability but appears to admit that its SAIC filings may be inaccurate.
Is this a public admission that it is keeping two sets of books? Rather disconcertingly, it does not seem to see anything wrong with filing inaccurate information in order to comply with regulatory requirements.
Given that the company's filings to SAIC in China may be inaccurate, how can investors be sure that its financial statements and announcements to the Singapore Exchange here are really true and fair, especially when it is clear that regulatory enforcement is easier for Chinese authorities than for Singapore authorities?
China Minzhong's statement also confirms the challenges of doing proper due diligence for Chinese companies using publicly available information, even those filed with regulatory authorities in China, and once again highlights the risks of investing in Chinese companies."