China MediaExpress's rapid growth and big profits helped it draw marquee U.S. investors. Now it is one of dozens companies from China that have come under fire by investors and U.S. regulators for allegedly misleading investors.
中國高速頻道夸大業績遭美國審查
在
大批赴美上市的中國公司中﹐中國高速傳媒控股有限公司（CCME﹐簡稱高速頻道）曾經像是一顆小小的明珠。憑借高調宣稱的快速增長和在中國城際巴士車載電視銷售廣告的巨額利潤﹐高速頻道吸引到了許多大牌投資者數億美元的資金。去年6月﹐公司在納斯達克市場（Nasdaq Stock Market）上市﹐其首席執行長敲響了開盤鐘。
如今﹐高速頻道陷入一團糟。投資者對其業務規模表示擔憂﹐對公司審計存有質疑﹐經歷動盪不堪的幾個月後﹐公司股票在納斯達克停牌。
公司涉嫌誤導投資者﹐遭到投資者的質疑和監管機構的審查。還有十幾家中國公司也有同樣問題﹐暴露了令美國監管機構擔憂不已的漏洞。
相關報導
德勤還說覺得自己“無法再……信任管理層的代表”﹐並對高速頻道董事會做出的“可靠財務報告”的承諾“失去了信心”。
高速頻道在向美國證券交易委員會（U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission﹐簡稱SEC）提交的文件中說﹐它“認為自己正在著手解決”德勤提出的這些問題。
同 樣是在3月﹐史帶國際有限公司（Starr International Co.）在美國特拉華州聯邦法院向高速頻道提起訴訟。史帶是一家由美國國際集團（American International Group Inc.）前首席執行長格林伯格（Maurice "Hank" Greenberg）管理的保險和投資公司。在訴訟中﹐史帶聲稱在10月份購買高速頻道1350萬美元股票是受到了高速頻道新聞稿和SEC備案文件的誤導 ﹐史帶指稱這些新聞稿和文件反復夸大高速頻道的收入及其業務規模。史帶未說明是如何知道這些公告是不準確的。
史帶還說就高速頻道在2010年1月接受史帶3000萬美元投資的協議在香港對其提起了仲裁程序。
4月﹐史帶又在特拉華州法院向高速頻道提起訴訟﹐指稱後者未能提供史帶要求的某些賬簿和記錄﹐違反了特拉華州法律。
高速頻道對兩起訴訟均尚未做出答辯。
3月﹐高速頻道股價下跌50%﹐導致其市值減少近4億美元﹐之後其股票交易被暫停。5月19日﹐高速頻道說納斯達克已經決定將其股票摘牌。
高速頻道股票在場外交易的價格為1.70美元﹐按這個價格計算﹐包括所有認股權證和優先股的轉換在內﹐史帶投資高速頻道的股票估值約1,100萬美元。今年1月27日﹐高速頻道的股價近23美元。
Dinny McMahon/The Wall Street Journal
乘客在乘坐一輛帶有高速頻道車載電視的北京機場大巴。由於投資者對其業務規模表示擔憂﹐對公司審計存有質疑﹐高速頻道的股票已在納斯達克停牌。
美國證券交易委員會目前正在調查通過“反向合併”或“反向收購”在美上市的中國公司的會計和信息披露等問題﹐凸顯出證交會對此事的廣泛關注。這種以“後門上市”赴美上市的中國公司向投資者披露的信息要遠遠少於通過傳統方式在美IPO的中國公司。
美國證券交易委員會投資者教育和宣傳部門的負責人朔克(Lori Schock)週四不客氣地警告說﹐鑒於這些潛在風險﹐投資者在考慮投資反向併購公司的股票時﹐應特別小心。
《華爾街日報》上週報道說﹐美國證券交易委員會正在調查部分中國公司的美國審計方﹐調查結果有望作為執法的事實依據。
高速頻道發言人說﹐美國證券交易委員會曾聯繫過該公司的審計委員會和律師﹐但沒有透露具體的聯繫時間。該發言人說﹐高速頻道計劃將公司內部調查結果上報給美國證券交易委員會。該委員會拒絕置評。
美 國上市公司會計監督委員會(U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board)的一項調查發現﹐2007年初至2010年3月期間﹐有159個中國公司通過反向收購在美國上市﹐其數量幾乎是同期通過傳統方式在美IPO的 中國公司的三倍。雖然大多數反向收購的公司規模較小﹐但若加總在一起﹐它們的影響不容小覷。調查覆蓋的這些公司2010年3月的總市值為128億美元。
美國證券交易委員會專員阿奎拉(Luis Aguilar)說﹐雖然這些中國公司里﹐大多數可能都是合法企業﹐但事實證明﹐其中有越來越多的公司都出現了重大會計缺陷或明目張膽的欺詐。
其它幾個反向收購的中國公司也被暫停股票交易或摘牌。
反向收購公司總計有數十億美元的市值就此蒸發﹐這些公司受到投資者、審計方和做空者的批評。
美國證券交易委員會處罰這些公司的能力有限。反向收購屬合法行為﹐而中國並不在該委員會的管轄範圍內﹐所以它無法從中國傳召相關文件資料和人員。由於反向收購公司的資產和大多數高管都位於中國國內﹐美國即使做出針對這些資產和高管的決定﹐執行起來也會受限。
高速頻道主營娛樂節目的編制﹐並銷售巴士車載視頻上的廣告位。其業務最初限於城際大巴。高速頻道首席執行長發言人表示﹐公司業務後來拓展至機場快線巴士﹐於是開始考慮在美國籌集資金﹐但金融危機阻止了其IPO計劃。
2009年10月﹐該公司通過反向收購﹐在紐約泛歐交易所集團(NYSE Euronext)旗下的美國證券交易所(American Stock Exchange)上市﹐立即就從投資者那裡籌集了4,600萬美元的資金。
不 過﹐由於該公司出色的業績﹐賣空者開始產生懷疑。在去年11月公佈的三季度收益報告中﹐高速頻道的資產回報率遠遠超過了在美國上市的中國三大廣告公司﹐比 排在第二的公司高出了三倍。其他公司的目標受眾為白領﹐而高速頻道安裝廣告屏的長途巴士乘客卻多為較不富裕的學生和農民工。
然後﹐問題開 始暴露出來。今年2月初﹐做空該股的三家投資者就該公司發表了負面報告。三家賣空者都說﹐自己是獨立行動的。其中之一Muddy Waters Research的報告獲得了特別的關注。報告稱﹐高速頻道向投資者宣稱自己的網絡涵蓋27,200輛巴士﹐而實際不到所說的一半。高速頻道否認了這一說 法。
Muddy Waters與高速頻道之間的口水戰難以核實﹐從一定程度上是因為無法獲得有關巴士登記的官方公開信息。
《華爾街日報》試圖聯繫上海巴士實業（集團）股份有限公司﹐據高速頻道說這家巴士公司是其最大的合作伙伴之一。高速頻道首席執行長程征在2月份公司網站上公佈的一封信中說﹐與上海巴士實業集團簽有合同﹐在後者1,892輛城際巴士上安裝有高速頻道的廣告屏。
2009年﹐上海巴士實業集團分成兩個名字不同的實體﹐該公司隨之不復存在。該公司的運輸業務被注入上海巴士公交（集團）有限公司。
高速頻道一位姓李的發言人說﹐現在與高速頻道簽有合同的是上海巴士公交（集團）。在記者反復要求高速頻道首席執行長置評後﹐該公司4月份安排了一次採訪。採訪中﹐李姓發言人說﹐上海巴士公交（集團）旗下的20多家子公司大部分都與高速頻道有合作。
據上海巴士公交（集團）辦公室的吳姓副主任和另外兩名員工說﹐該公司運營著數千輛同城巴士﹐不過只有一家子公司運營城際巴士。該公司城際巴士子公司辦公室管理人士劉德慶（音）說﹐該子公司只有約800輛車﹐而且與高速頻道沒有合作。
高速頻道發言人說﹐該公司與上海巴士公交（集團）的多個子公司有業務往來﹐歐華律師事務所進行的內部調查的結果將證實它此前的說法。
《華爾街日報》最近探訪了一個由上海巴士公交（集團）運營的、上海最大的長途汽車站之一。期間﹐三輛停靠在那裡的巴士都未裝有高速頻道的廣告屏。而是由司機決定巴士的硬盤中播放什麼。
車站副站長王輝（音）說﹐你會發現每輛車各有一套不同的影片。
高速頻道李姓發言人說﹐該公司目前對自身在美上市的方式產生了疑慮。他說﹐我們從來沒有想到採用這種方式上市會以投資者的信任為代價。
Dinny McMahon
False Advertising: 'Backdoor' China Plays Under Fire
China MediaExpress Holdings Inc. (CCME) once seemed like a small gem among a heap of Chinese companies listing shares in the U.S.
Boasting rapid growth and big profits from selling advertising on video screens in Chinese intercity buses, it drew tens of millions of dollars from marquee investors. It listed its shares on the Nasdaq Stock Market, where its chief executive rang the opening bell last June.
Today, MediaExpress is in chaos, its shares no longer traded on Nasdaq after a turbulent few months marked by investors' concerns over the size of its business and questions over its accounting.
It is one of dozens of companies from China that have come under fire by investors and regulators for allegedly misleading investors, exposing a loophole that has U.S. regulators concerned.
The company's auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, resigned in March, saying that it had raised concerns over 'possible undisclosed bank accounts and bank loans,' and 'issues concerning the validity of certain advertising agents/customers and bus operators,' among other issues, according to a MediaExpress regulatory filing verified by Deloitte.
The accounting firm also said it felt it could 'no longer...rely on the representations of management' and had 'lost confidence' in the MediaExpress board's commitment to 'reliable financial reporting.'
MediaExpress said in the filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that it 'believes that it was working to address' the items Deloitte raised.
The same month, Starr International Co., an insurance and investment vehicle run by former American International Group Inc. chief Maurice 'Hank' Greenberg, sued MediaExpress in federal court in Delaware. In its suit, Starr claims that it bought $13.5 million of the company's stock in October on the basis of MediaExpress news releases and SEC filings that Starr alleges repeatedly overstated MediaExpress's income and the size of its operations. Starr doesn't say how it knows the statements were inaccurate.
Starr also said it separately had initiated arbitration in Hong Kong over MediaExpress's agreements in a separate $30 million Starr investment made in January 2010.
In April, Starr also sued MediaExpress in Delaware state court, alleging that the company failed to turn over certain books and records when Starr asked for them, in violation of Delaware law.
MediaExpress hasn't yet filed answers to either lawsuit.
Exchange trading in MediaExpress's shares was suspended in March after a 50% drop erased almost $400 million in market value. On May 19, MediaExpress said Nasdaq had decided to delist its shares.
The shares now trade over the counter at $1.70, compared with nearly $23 on Jan. 27, valuing Starr's stake at about $11 million, assuming the conversion of all warrants and preferred stock.
MediaExpress has denied its critics' assertions, blaming short sellers--investors who make money when a stock price declines--for attacking its shares. It said in early May that it had commissioned international law firm DLA Piper to investigate the allegations against it. A spokeswoman for DLA Piper declined to comment.
Underscoring the SEC's broader concerns, the regulator is examining accounting and disclosure issues regarding Chinese companies that listed in the U.S. through a backdoor process known as a 'reverse merger' or 'reverse takeover' that requires them to disclose a lot less information to investors than a traditional initial public offering.
'Given the potential risks, investors should be especially careful when considering investing in the stock of reverse-merger companies,' Lori Schock, the SEC's director of investor education and advocacy, said in a blunt warning on Thursday.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that the SEC also is investigating some of the Chinese companies' U.S. auditors, too, and that the inquiry is expected to lead to enforcement cases.
A MediaExpress spokesman said the SEC had contacted its audit committee and lawyers. He wouldn't say when. He said the company plans to report the results of its internal investigation to the agency. The SEC declined to comment.
A survey by the U.S. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, which monitors auditors, identified 159 Chinese companies from the start of 2007 through March 2010 that listed in the U.S. through reverse takeovers. That is almost three times the number of Chinese companies that launched traditional IPOs in the U.S. over the same period. While most reverse-takeover companies are small, as a group they pack weight: Those covered by the survey had a total market capitalization of $12.8 billion in March 2010.
'While the vast majority of these Chinese companies may be legitimate businesses, a growing number of them are proving to have significant accounting deficiencies or being vessels of outright fraud,' said Luis Aguilar, a commissioner of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in April.
Several other Chinese reverse-takeover companies also have been suspended or delisted.
In all, billions of dollars in market value have vaporized in reverse-takeover companies that have come under criticism from investors, auditors and short sellers.
The SEC's ability to discipline these companies is limited. Reverse takeovers are legal, and the agency's jurisdiction doesn't extend into China, so it can't subpoena documents and people. With company assets and most senior executives in China, the U.S. has limited scope to enforce any decisions against them.
MediaExpress programs entertainment and sells ad space on video screens installed in buses. The business originally was limited to intercity buses. Its expansion into airport express buses drove it to look into raising capital in the U.S, but the financial crisis scuttled plans to list via an IPO, according to a spokesman for the CEO.
The company listed its shares through a reverse takeover on NYSE Euronext's American Stock Exchange in October 2009 and immediately raised $46 million from investors.
But short sellers were becoming suspicious because of its stellar results. In its third-quarter results, released in November, MediaExpress's return on assets far outstripped those of the three major Chinese 'out-of-home' advertising companies listed in the U.S.; it was three times higher than the next best performer. And whereas the other firms target a white-collar audience, the long-distance buses in which MediaExpress installs its screens are mainly used by less-affluent students and migrant workers.
Then things started unraveling. In early February, three investors who had shorted the stock, issued negative reports on the company. All three short sellers said they acted independently. A report by one of them, Muddy Waters Research, gained particular attention. It alleged that MediaExpress had fewer than half the 27,200 buses than it tells investors are in its network. MediaExpress denied the assertion.
The competing claims by Muddy Waters and MediaExpress are hard to verify, in part because no official information on bus registrations is publicly available.
The Journal tried to contact a bus company that MediaExpress has claimed is one of its biggest partners, Shanghai Bus Industrial Group Co. MediaExpress Chief Executive Cheng Zheng said in a February letter published on its website that it had a contract with Shanghai Bus to carry MediaExpress screens on 1,892 intercity buses.
Shanghai Bus ceased to exist in 2009 after splitting into two differently named entities. Its transport business was injected into Shanghai Ba-Shi Public Transportation Group Co.
A spokesman for MediaExpress who identified himself as Mr. Li said Shanghai Ba-Shi is the company with which MediaExpress now has a contract. In an April interview arranged by MediaExpress after repeated requests for comment from its CEO, Mr. Li said most of Shanghai Ba-Shi's more than 20 units work with MediaExpress.
Shanghai Ba-Shi runs thousands of intracity buses, but it has only one unit that runs intercity buses, according to the vice director of the company's general office, who gave his surname as Wu, and two other people who work there. Liu Deqing, an official in the general office of the intercity bus unit, said it has only about 800 vehicles, and that the unit doesn't work with MediaExpress.
MediaExpress's spokesman said the company does business with multiple units of Shanghai Ba-Shi, and that the results of the internal investigation being conducted by DLA Piper will validate its previous claims.
At one of the biggest long-distance bus terminals in Shanghai, a gleaming depot run by Shanghai Ba-Shi, none of the three buses idling during a recent Journal visit carried MediaExpress screens. Instead, the bus drivers determined what to load onto the buses' hard drives.
'You'll find that every bus has got a different set of movies,' said a deputy station master, Wang Hui.
Mr. Li, the MediaExpress spokesman, said the company now has misgivings about how it listed in the U.S. 'We had never considered that this way of listing would come [at the expense] of investor trust,' he said.
沒有留言:
張貼留言