死磕安踏浑水发布第四份做空报告:骗子用袜子木偶说谎

死磕安踏浑水发布第四份做空报告:骗子用袜子木偶说谎
2019年07月15日 23:38 反做空研究中心

来源|国际投行研究报告

【编者按:浑水发布了第四份做空安踏的报告,似乎没有一家做空机构连续发布一家公司的做空报告的,也没有一家公司像安踏一样勇敢面对的,因为很多企业确实有问题。就如浑水这次说的,在他做空的14家中国公司中,超过90%的公司最后都没好下场!那么,安踏呢?翻译不完全正确,所有文字内容以英文为正确】

We resume our campaign to expose ANTA’s fraud, and have several more pieces planned that will expose other inconsistencies and lies. In this piece though, we first take stock of the lies in ANTA’s responses to our pieces last week. Muddy Waters has been exposing frauds for nine years, and never once have we been accused by a regulator of lying. Yet, in almost every single instance of our accusing a company of fraud, the company denied our conclusions. Regardless, of the 14 PRC-based companies we have previously shorted due to research conclusions of fraud published on our website, six have been de-listed, one has been halted for almost five years, two have been later acquired by managements at premiums (one subsequently paid a significant regulatory settlement), two are down over 90%, two more are down significantly, and only one other stock is up. That’s 11-3 by our reckoning. Nine of these wins are knockouts (down over 90%, de-listed, or in suspended animation).

我们重新启动我们的行动,以揭露安踏的欺诈行为,我们计划揭露其他不一致和谎言的内容。不过,在这篇文章中,我们首先评估了安踏上周对我们作品的回应中的谎言。Muddy Waters对欺诈行为的揭露已经持续了九年,从来没有一次我们被一个监管者指责说谎。然而,在我们指责欺诈公司的几乎每一个案例中,公司都会否认我们的结论。无论如何,由于我们网站上发布的欺诈研究结论,我们之前已经做空了14家中国公司,其中6家已被除名,其中一家已停业近五年,其中两家后来被管理层以保费收购( 一个人随后支付了一项重要的监管和解协议,其中两个下跌超过90%,另外两个下跌显着,只有一个其他股票上涨。也就是11-3。其中9次获胜是淘汰赛(超过90%,被除名,或者是假死)。

So with ANTA we see the same pattern: We present evidence of fraud (in this case, well over 100 pages and counting), the company denies it, and surrogates come out to defend the company. In this case, the company has shifted almost all of the burden of defense to the ever-pliable sell-side, effectively turning some analysts into little more than sock puppets. Ordinarily, managements have no effective downside to trying to lie their way out of fraud accusations – there is usually no increased regulatory penalty or shareholder opprobrium, so lying in the fact of fraud accusations becomes one of the most asymmetric bets a management can undertake. In ANTA’s case, it has outsourced much of the lying to the sock puppets, effectively mutualizing the reputational risk. We now address these lies-in-response.

因此,在安踏,我们看到相同的模式:我们提供欺诈证据(在这种情况下,超过100页),公司否认它,并且代理人出来为公司辩护。在这种情况下,该公司已将几乎所有的防御负担转移到不断变化的卖方,从而有效地将一些分析师变成了小袜子。通常情况下,管理层没有有效的下行方式试图摆脱欺诈指控 - 通常没有增加监管处罚或股东的谴责,因此欺诈指控这一事实成为管理层可以采取的最不对称的赌注之一。在安踏的案例中,它已将大部分谎言外包给袜子木偶,有效地使声誉风险相互影响。我们现在解决这些谎言反应。

Lie 1: “We never said we own all Fila stores” ANTA’s statement through analysts that it never claimed to own all Fila stores is an attempt to rewrite history, and it is a lie. This fact points again to our conclusion that the reported numbers for Fila cannot be relied upon. Our Part 3 report made it literally indisputable that a third party, Mr. Su Weiqing, owned the Beijing Fila stores. The company initially reacted by issuing a Clarification Announcement that stated it “vigorously denies” the allegations. The problem ANTA had with this denial is that even a 10-year old could see it was a lie. So ANTA attempted to re-write history by falsely stating through sock puppets that it never claimed to own all Fila stores.1Just weeks prior to publishing our report, we held a call with ANTA’s internal Investor Relations representative, Ms. Suki Wong. We asked her whether ANTA owns all Fila stores in China, and she repeatedly assured us that it does. Below is the transcript of the portions of the conversation that dealt with Fila store ownership. Q: [With respect to Fila] In 2014 you went from wholesale to retail, and then when you say you went from wholesale to retail, everything is self-owned and self-operated?

谎言1:“我们从未说过我们拥有所有Fila商店”

安踏通过分析师声明,它从未声称拥有所有Fila商店是试图重写历史,这是一个谎言。这一事实再次指出了我们的结论,即Fila报告的数字不能依赖。我们的第3部分报告使第三方苏伟青先生拥有北京Fila商店毫无疑问。该公司最初通过发布澄清公告作出反应,声明其“强烈否认”这些指控。安踏对此否认的问题是,即使是10岁的人也会认为这是谎言。因此,安踏试图通过虚假陈述其从未声称拥有所有Fila商店的袜子来重写历史。在发布我们的报告前几周,我们与安踏的内部投资者关系代表Suki Wong女士进行了一次电话会议。我们问她安踏是否拥有中国的所有Fila商店,她一再向我们保证确实如此。以下是涉及Fila商店所有权的对话部分的记录。

问:[关于Fila] 2014年你从批发到零售,然后当你说你从批发到零售时,一切都是自有和自营?

上述内容当然与安踏在回应Blue Orca Capital / Soren Aandahl的演讲时所说的一致。在回应电话会议上,据报道,首席财务官赖世贤被问及安踏是否正在考虑为Fila批发,并回应说:“我们没有计划让Fila进行批发......我们将继续经营Fila的自营模式 ”

这似乎是一个非常合适的时机来披露安踏确实从事Fila品牌下的一些批发业务。迄今为止最合乎逻辑的结论是,安踏打算向投资者说谎其对Fila商店的所有权。不应依赖Fila财务。

Lie 2: The disposal of Shanghai Fengxian and its subsidiaries was proper.

Through a sock puppet, ANTA management addressed the obviously corrupt and improper transaction by stating that the international brands retail business was doing poorly, as evidenced by its losses, and that the recipient was an independent party. This was a new, rapidly growing business that was ahead of plan in terms of sales.4 One would think that even the least switched-on sock puppet would understand that new, rapidly growing businesses often report losses. This is not a valid reason for the disposal. Instead, it shows that ANTA insiders stuffed the public company shareholders with losses necessary to scale the business before taking it for themselves.

谎言2:上海奉贤及其子公司的处置是恰当的

通过一个袜子傀儡,安踏管理层通过声明国际品牌零售业务表现不佳,其损失证明,并且收款人是一个独立的第三方,解决了明显腐败和不正当的交易。这是一个新的,快速增长的业务,在销售方面领先于计划.人们会认为,即使是最不开启的袜子傀儡也会理解新的,快速增长的企业经常报告亏损。这不是处置的正当理由。相反,它表明安踏内部人员向公众公司股东填补了在为自己取得业务之前扩大业务所需的损失。

The ultimate recipient of Shanghai Fengxian was not an independent party – certainly not in substance, and likely not in form. After Fengxian passed through a straw buyer within six months, the ultimate recipient was ANTA proxy network member Chen Dinglong. At the time, Chen was the largest shareholder of a then-disclosed Connected Person, Guangzhou Anda. Even if ANTA were to argue that Chen was technically not a Connected Person, the use of the obvious straw purchaser to disguise the ultimate recipient shows that Chen is, in fact, a Connected Person.

上海奉贤的最终收款人不是一个独立的第三方 - 当然不是实质上的,也可能不是形式上的。奉贤在六个月内通过一名稻草买家后,最终收件人是安踏代理网络成员陈定龙。当时,陈是当时披露的关联人士广州安达的第一大股东。即使安踏认为陈在技术上不是关联人,使用明显的吸管购买者来掩盖最终的接收者,这表明陈实际上是一个关联人。

Lie 3: ANTA distributors are independent, and are not Connected Persons.

The evidence is overwhelming that ANTA brand distributors are not actually independent, and that they are controlled by ANTA in ways that make them Connected Persons. More importantly, as we detailed in Part 1, ANTA controls their finance departments by hiring the finance manager and paying finance department employees (likely through Yundong). This control over finance departments in particular is improper and we believe enables ANTA to create fraudulent transactions. Having this control is not about supporting distributors in their marketing, nor providing management knowhow. The obvious purpose is to create accounting records. (Note also the use of ANTA IT infrastructure by distributors’ finance personnel reporting to SAIC.5)

谎言3:安踏分销商是独立的,并非联系人

有证据表明,安踏品牌经销商实际上并不是独立的,并且他们受到安踏的控制,使其成为联网人。更重要的是,正如我们在第1部分中详述的那样,安踏通过聘请财务经理和支付财务部门员工(可能通过云东)来控制其财务部门。特别是对财务部门的控制是不恰当的,我们认为安踏可以创建欺诈性交易。拥有这种控制权不是为了支持分销商的营销,也不是提供管理知识。显而易见的目的是创建会计记录。(另请注意分销商的财务人员向SAIC报告使用ANTA IT基础设施。)

The below is from ANTA’s 2018 Annual Report.6 It lists the auditors’ methods for reviewing recognition of revenue from distributors: a) reviewing distributor agreements (supplied by ANTA), b) assessing whether ANTA’s accounts reflect revenue in the manners the distributor agreements provide (information supplied by ANTA), c) reviewing documentation of credit notes and returns (supplied by ANTA), d) sending confirmation letters to the distributors (whose finance departments ANTA controls), and e) asking management (the masterminds of the fraud) about significant sales adjustments.

以下是安踏2018年度报告.6它列出了审计员审查经销商收入确认的方法:a)审查经销商协议(由安踏提供),b)评估安踏的账户是否以经销商协议提供的方式反映收入 (安踏提供的信息),c)审查信用票据和退货的文件(由安踏提供),d)向分销商(其财务部门安踏控制)发送确认函,以及e)询问管理层(欺诈的主谋) 关于重大的销售调整。

Conclusion ANTA has shown no evidence to counter the well over 100 pages of evidence and commentary regarding ANTA’s corruption. Rather, it has relied on proxies to make unsupported (and nonsensical) statements. Why? Because liars lie.

结论

安踏没有证据可以反驳超过100页的证据以及有关安踏腐败的评论。

相反,它依赖于代理来不受支持的(和无意义的)语句。

为什么?因为骗子说谎。

近期原创文章“国酒茅台”成旧梦2019年上半年,这些中国公司被做空深交所连发13问,欢瑞世纪距离退市有多远?3000万罚单背后:达利被指“食品模仿界的翘楚”以区块链为名,类似传销的plus token终于崩盘了一年三次遭做空,浑水大骂安踏“行业里的老鼠屎”销量跌,股价半,雷军圈地,晨兴想跑,小米怎么了?

财经自媒体联盟更多自媒体作者

新浪首页 语音播报 相关新闻 返回顶部