11-04-2013, 10:20 AM
I’ve read the past couple of articles just updated by Bloomberg and it seems to me there are a couple of writers (or headline editors) doing a hit-job on NQ Mobile. The articles refute major Muddy Waters contentions but continue to headline and reiterate allegations.
The link below refutes the statement by MW that Yidatong is “incapable of processing meaningful amounts of payments on behalf of NQ because it does not have even one employee regularly present” to carry out such basic responsibilities as turning on the lights, answering phones or ordering office supplies, according to Muddy Waters. In fact there is a company that HAS been processing NQ payments for three years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03...ffice.html
I wonder why Bloomberg didn’t lead the story, say with the headline “Muddy Waters’ NQ Mobile Allegations Found False”.
I also wonder why as the following link shows, that NQ does get paid. OK, its DSO or accounts receivable are on the average 90 days or so, but the headline should have been “Cash Balance Confirms NQ Not Fraud” with a subtitle “Accounts payable in China typically slow”. Instead the article was titled “Muddy Waters Viewed Right on Mobile Payments, Wrong on Cash”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03...-cash.html
The whole story SHOULD be Muddy Waters’ report and how it is being found riddled with errors, with MW itself the fraud. So just why does the accused and not the accuser suffer from the bad press unless there is something nefarious going on? After all, which is the barrel of rotten apples, the one with a couple of apples having bruises or the barrel smelling of alcohol covered in a cloud of flies?
The link below refutes the statement by MW that Yidatong is “incapable of processing meaningful amounts of payments on behalf of NQ because it does not have even one employee regularly present” to carry out such basic responsibilities as turning on the lights, answering phones or ordering office supplies, according to Muddy Waters. In fact there is a company that HAS been processing NQ payments for three years.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03...ffice.html
I wonder why Bloomberg didn’t lead the story, say with the headline “Muddy Waters’ NQ Mobile Allegations Found False”.
I also wonder why as the following link shows, that NQ does get paid. OK, its DSO or accounts receivable are on the average 90 days or so, but the headline should have been “Cash Balance Confirms NQ Not Fraud” with a subtitle “Accounts payable in China typically slow”. Instead the article was titled “Muddy Waters Viewed Right on Mobile Payments, Wrong on Cash”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-03...-cash.html
The whole story SHOULD be Muddy Waters’ report and how it is being found riddled with errors, with MW itself the fraud. So just why does the accused and not the accuser suffer from the bad press unless there is something nefarious going on? After all, which is the barrel of rotten apples, the one with a couple of apples having bruises or the barrel smelling of alcohol covered in a cloud of flies?