Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

jasenj1 (34.36)

Education with ABAT

Recs

6

April 01, 2011 – Comments (19) | RELATED TICKERS: ABAT , YONG

A couple of days ago shares of ABAT dropped 40% based on a posting on Seeking Alpha. (That drop cost me 40 CAPS points.) I thought that was a pretty flimsy reason for such a dramatic drop, so I picked up a few shares at $2.03. I also started following the Yahoo message boards for the stock since MF's board for ABAT is silent.

Well, besides the Yahoo boards being a seething pool of insanity, there also seemed to be a few rational voices picking the SA story apart. On the 31st, ABAT opened sharply down at $1.60ish but then jumped and spent the rest of the day just below $2.00. Today it opened at $1.86 spiked to $2.00 briefly and it is too early to see where it will end up for the day (right now at $1.89, close to its opening).

Now, I'm not a day trader, but there seems like a LOT of money to be made here and a lot of money changing hands. The volume for the last few days is WAY above the average for the past year - way, way above! I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to this kind of stuff, but to my eye it looks like automated systems are putting in low bids at opening, turning around and offering the shares at $0.10 to $0.20 higher and reaping the profit. Add in shorts and other machinations I don't understand and this seems like a place money is being made out of thin air. A similar scenario played out recently with YONG, a negative article was posted, the stock dropped, then recovered most of its price.

As a wee, tiny, little fish in the investing ocean I can't begin to fathom the powers at work. I feel like a bottom feeding minnow while sharks hunt seals somewhere way up the food chain. I can try to glean a few of the scraps that fall and hope to grow to be a fat happy little minnow - and not get crushed by something they drop.

19 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 01, 2011 at 11:30 AM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

If you are trying to trade garbage companies like ABAT and you don't know what you are doing, the shark will eat you.

(Disclosure -- I wrote the "negative article" on YONG)

Report this comment
#2) On April 01, 2011 at 11:59 AM, jasenj1 (34.36) wrote:

Thanks for commenting.

And based on the responses from YONG, do you feel the price drop was warranted? And the subsequent recovery?

I'm not suggesting that if you think something smells rotten you shouldn't use whatever means are at your disposal to bring such to light. What I'm amazed at is that a single post on an investment blog can have such a dramatic affect on a stock's price.

Given a little time and effort, I suspect even I, a nobody, could get a negative article posted to SA. Especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Did you take any short positions before posting the article on YONG? If you intentionally set yourself up to profit from a dip in the stock price before publishing an article, that's... at least weasely.

Report this comment
#3) On April 01, 2011 at 12:04 PM, mountaincouger (31.75) wrote:

Now, now. Anticipating the people up at the top is part of the game. And the light speed traders are after 1-2% changes. I would chase 4% fluctuations if I was investing with more money too. I think this stock is probably a favorite for option trading right now? What do you think. Alot, of wagers being made. I wonder what percent of the traders are betting on the upside?

I think it is alittle early to call ABAT garbage. Lets at least let the lawyers speak first and let the company defend themselves. 

Report this comment
#4) On April 01, 2011 at 1:20 PM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

I first wrote about YONG at $7.32 (beginning of February). I think the weakening of their share price since I've written about them is justified, given that the company has not provided credible evidence supporting the efficacy of humic acid, it has not appeared to fully comply with SEC disclosure regulations, and it is being unnecessarily mysterious about its relationships with distributors/customers. It is also unclear what connection there is between Yongye Group (and/or the CEO's other business ventures) and Yongye Int'l.

If the company is legit, they can easily allay me of my concerns by making public the information I have requested.

I was not short YONG at the time of publication of any of my 3 articles.

Report this comment
#5) On April 03, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Ecomike (< 20) wrote:

Efficacy of Humic acid? You are joking right?

The efficacy of Humic acid has been known for decades. It is the gold standard in organic nature made fertilizer!

 It is a billion dollar market!

 

http://www.google.com/search?q=humoc+acid&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=wK9&rls=org.mozilla:en-US%3Aofficial&source=hp&q=humic+acid&aq=f&aqi=g-l5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=c99decee79d1fe4a

--------------------------------------------------

 "I first wrote about YONG at $7.32 (beginning of February). I think the weakening of their share price since I've written about them is justified, given that the company has not provided credible evidence supporting the efficacy of humic acid," Goldminingexpert quote.

-----------------------------

Oh, and most companies do not publish lists of their customers.

 

 

Report this comment
#6) On April 03, 2011 at 6:32 PM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

Humic acid is not proven to accomplish anything other than improve water management (which Yongye's product does not do as it is a spray rather than organic material)

Here's the wikipedia quote:

"At the present time, soil scientists hold a more holistic view and at least recognize that humus influences soil fertility through its effect on the water-holding capacity of the soil. Also, since plants have been shown to absorb and translocate the complex organic molecules of systemic insecticides, they can no longer discredit the idea that plants may be able to absorb the soluble forms of humus; this may in fact be an essential process for the uptake of otherwise insoluble iron oxides."

Plants MAY be able to absorb .... this MAY in fact be...

Not proven! And the "science" Yongye cited to support its claim was laughable. I'm not saying Shengmingsu doesn't work (the NPK fertilizer certainly works, even in humic acid doesn't) but you cannot say with any confidence that humic acid definitely works.

Report this comment
#7) On April 04, 2011 at 11:40 PM, buffalonate (94.44) wrote:

I looked it up and Home Depot doesn't even carry any products that I could find with humic or fulvic acid.  If this was some revolutionary product wouldn't they have it.  It is just organic fertilizer and that is it.  From what I could find you are supposed to use it in addition to fertilizer for the trace nutrients.  I am still trying to figure out what organic fertilizer has to do with technology.  They just mine it, there is no science behind it.       

Report this comment
#8) On April 05, 2011 at 10:26 AM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

comment #7 is right on!

Report this comment
#9) On April 06, 2011 at 8:07 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Don't listen to GMX, he is on some kind of weird crusade against all Chinese small-caps. Notice how quickly he calls ABAT a garbage company for no reason whatsoever.

Attacking YONG because you don't like their products is ridiculous. Why not attack The Vitamin Shoppe for selling dandelion root as an herbal supplement?

Report this comment
#10) On April 06, 2011 at 8:38 PM, TheDumbMoney (51.59) wrote:

I'm going to Seeking Alpha RIGHT NOW to write up the dandelion root thing!!!!  F^#^% Vitamin Shoppe and their deliberately archaic spelling of shop.  They are going down. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 07, 2011 at 7:53 AM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

ETFsRule: That'd be a "weird crusade" against fraud.

On one side, folks like Herb Greenberg, SEC commissioner Aguilar, Citron Research, Muddy Waters, and others doing real due diligence into these shady companies.

On the other side, people running and profiting from bogus reverse mergers (and their cheerleaders such as yourself) to misappropriate money from foolish investors.

Report this comment
#12) On April 12, 2011 at 5:06 PM, MAURIZIO400cc (67.91) wrote:

gmx youare a yoke!

your level of researc an DD does not extend even as far as cracking a dictionary to look up humic acid or humus for that matter. here is a clue sherlock, they are not the same thing.

how can anybody be so frkking ignorant as not to know that 'humus' is the 1st fertilizer used by mankind, and the only one known and used today by many underdeveloped agricoltures as well as the majority of homemaker in all of europe.

I suppose that what is wrong with you poor underprivileged american short sellers is that your mothers do not keep flower pots on the balcon. there you go baby now you got the right target to blame for making you look like a moron in front of your friends

 

Report this comment
#13) On April 12, 2011 at 5:13 PM, MAURIZIO400cc (67.91) wrote:

buffalonate, I wonder how many labels of fertilizer you succeded on reading before your poor little nuddle hurt soo bad because of all those bad long words. can you tell us, can you tell us the names and the brands as well, m sure the boo boo would feel better if you did.

Report this comment
#14) On April 12, 2011 at 5:28 PM, MAURIZIO400cc (67.91) wrote:

ETFsRule,

allow me to point out to you, borrowing a line from the great frank miller, that " you have not quite understood this man" he is not on a weird crusade against anything, he is just an hibernating bear that refused to get up in spring and keeps arguing why he was right to do so. ever met anyone before that was always right and loved to make others wrong?

additionaly this poor attention starved child needs an audience for his fantasy and creativity to express, only problem is this is not the fiction section of the bookstore. as a point due he ain't that bad at writing and m sure he'll find some more appropriate subject to write about if he really puts his head to it.

Report this comment
#15) On April 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

spray-on humic acid has no scientific evidence backing it.

ABAT is going down the drain again now -- fairly predictable, no?

Report this comment
#16) On April 12, 2011 at 9:50 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"spray-on humic acid has no scientific evidence backing it."

How do you know? Have you gone through every scientific journal in the world? It's hard to take you seriously when you make blanket statements like that. You're not an expert in this field.

Here is a patent describing one such spray-applied formulation containing humic acid.

Here's another.

And some scientific studies here and here.

Another patent for a foliar spray using humic acid.

Is that enough?

Report this comment
#17) On April 12, 2011 at 10:16 PM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

Oh boy, patents. Everything that is patented is useful, right? Not really. We have issues more than a hundred patents for coal to oil synthetic fuel technology, and yet there is no commercially viable application of this multitude of patents for example.

I'm not an expert in the field, no. However, the study Yongye cited is bogus, and the people who have attempted to refute my article have pulled either equally bogus studies or just repeated Yongye's flawed Pettit one. Speak with university experts and none of them have heard of humic acid as a fertilizer (this I can verify -- I may not be an expert, but I can and do speak with true experts).

Also, several states such as California have banned false misleading advertising of humic acid products as they are snake oils.

Report this comment
#18) On April 12, 2011 at 10:37 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Because I was merely responding to your statement, "spray-on humic acid has no scientific evidence backing it."

But I did, in fact, post scientific evidence backing it. There is scientific evidence proving its usefulness in those patents, as well as in the two non-patent studies that I posted.

Are you still saying there is no evidence? Even after I showed you a study full of scientific evidence, published by the International Journal of Agriculture & Biology?

By the way, there plenty more leads that you could follow in the references of that paper:

Fagbenro, J.A. and A.A. Agboole, 1993. Effect of different levels of humic
acid on the growth and nutrition uptake of teak seedlings. J. Pl.
Nutr., 17: 173–84

Chen, Y. and T. Aviad, 1990. Effect of humic substances on plant growth.
In : Humic substances in soil and crop science. American Soc. of
Agron. and Soil Sci. Soc. of America., Madison, pp. 161–86

Vaughan, D. and R.E. Malcom, 1985. Influence of humic substances on
growth and physiological processes. In: Vaughan, D. and R.E.
Malcom (eds.), Soil Organic Matter and Biological Activity. pp. 37–
75. Martinus, Nijhoff/Dr W Junk Publ. Dodrecht

Sharif, M., R.A. Khattak and M.S. Sarir, 2002. Wheat and nutrients
accumulation as affected by humic acid and chemical fertilizers.
Sarhad J. Agric., 18: 323–9

Rauthan, B.S. and M. Schnitzer, 1981. Effect of a soil fulvic acid on the
growth and nutrient content of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants.
Pl. Soil, 63: 491–5

Khan, A.R. and S. Mir, 2002. Plant growth stimulation of lignite humic acid
part II. Effect of lignite derived ammonium humate on wheat
(Triticum aestivum V) crop using different levels of phosphate
fertilizer. Pakistan J. Sci Indust. Res., 45: 273–6


Lee, Y.S. and R.J. Bartlett, 1976. Stimulation of plant growth by humic
substances. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 40: 876–9

And just to clarify (because you seem to be going back and forth): do you believe humic acid as a fertilizer is useless in general, or only when it is spray-applied?

Report this comment
#19) On May 05, 2011 at 4:08 PM, goldminingXpert (29.51) wrote:

1.41 today. Fraud. Fraud. Fraud. You're all dupes.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement