Comments on: Olam should show, not tell in Muddy Waters fight Mon, 26 Sep 2016 03:26:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Rakuten1 Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:18:37 +0000 No offense, but you must be joking… How can you seriously suggest OLAM should sell off part of their inventories just to prove that they are a liquid asset. It is bad enough that OLAM management has to spend their valuable time writing a 45 detailed response to the MW report and go through the effort of having to sue MW for their baseless attacks. OLAM has done more than enough to show that they are a legitimate operation. Let them go back to do their business and create employment and shareholder value as they have done successfully for a long time already (unlike MW).

The burden of proof is on MWs side. Unlike OLAMs track record, CB so far got only one thing right in his career (Sino Forest) and plenty of failures (such as Focus Media, as well as his storage company). As far as I am concerned he is an arrogant 36 year old wanna be finance star, who is targeting companies with complex balance sheets to make a quick buck on the short side, as he knows there will always be some doubt left, after he attacks them.

There is nothing wrong with shorting stocks of companies you dont like. Many hedge funds do that successfully. There is everything wrong with building a large short position in a stock and then using you reputation to make aggressive public statements
about the company such as “the company will fail and shareholders will be left with nothing”.

I thought we had finally learned a lesson that employment creating, profit creating companies are more valuable to society than Gordon Gekko style short sellers. I find it absolutely appalling that a Reuters reporter is taking the MW side on this issue.