atans1

Why Muddy Waters’ attack on Olam failed

In Financial competency on 26/02/2013 at 10:41 am

Olam is not listed in US and subject to SEC scrutiny.

“Muddy Waters Secret China Weapon Is on SEC Website”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/muddy-waters-secret-china-weapon-is-on-sec-website.html

The success of Muddy waters in destroying Sino-Forest (also not listed in US) made it guilty of hubris?

Xmen and others Temasek-haters: Ang moh not always tua kee if they bet, bitch against Temasek. They may juz be plain wrong, like Muddy Waters and Balding.

  1. All citizens of Singapore are stake-holders of Temasek,so I do not think any of them qualify as Temasek -haters, unhappy stakeholders,yes,I am one,but not hater,why?bacause I like money more than I dislike PAP,so it is a matter of track record,nothing else.I am not sure that Muddy Waters and Balding are both wrong,but I respect your opinion.

  2. We are all none the wiser as long as they can hide behind the high wall that is Singapore Inc.

    Which side of the wall are you on?

  3. In Sino-Forest case, the Ontario Securities Commission followed the lead of the Muddy Waters, while in all other Muddy Waters’ successful cases, MW followed the lead of the SEC. The OSC is a joke.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: