Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

goldminingXpert (29.49)

Looking Forward To Apology From Tim Hanson

Recs

30

May 18, 2012 – Comments (58) | RELATED TICKERS: YONG

 I don't mind that Tim Hanson made a bad call on Yongye and got sucked in by management's sweet talk and spin. I've fallen for stock scams in the past myself, it's a part of life.

What I do mind is that he wrote this nasty little article about me http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2011/02/10/the-c... . My report was not sloppily researched, and it was "serious" and "detailed" contrary to Mr. Hanson's assertions. Yongye's aggressive accounting practices have led to the stock's implosion over the past year.

It's one thing to be fantastically wrong on a pick -- like Mr. Hanson has been -- and another to go and defame critics who in fact were right. Had he investigated my claims when YONG still traded at $7, he could have saved himself face and his subscribers a lot of money.

Regards,

GMX (Ian Bezek)

58 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 18, 2012 at 3:44 PM, kdakota630 (29.59) wrote:

Hadn't seen that previous article, thanks for sharing.

Also, congrats on causing a stock to lose $40 million all by yourself.

It certainly does look like an apology is in order. 

Report this comment
#2) On May 18, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Valyooo (99.41) wrote:

Nice.

But don't hold your breath.  Chinese fraud defenders are the second least likely people to admit they were wrong.

You've made some awesome calls and are good with accounting, I think one day you can get back to #1 on this site.

Report this comment
#3) On May 18, 2012 at 3:58 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

Thanks both of you.  Good luck on the FB green thumb Valyooo, I was really tempted to green thumb it, but in the end I could not look past the fundamentals and do it.

Report this comment
#4) On May 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM, TMFAleph1 (95.09) wrote:

Chris-- Tim certainly got that one spectacularly wrong, but I don't see that he mentioned you anywhere in the article or the Comments section. Am I missing something?

Report this comment
#5) On May 18, 2012 at 4:23 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

TMFAleph, I am Ian Bezek. GoldminingXpert is my moniker here. I wrote about YONG under my real name multiple times for Seeking Alpha, including here http://seekingalpha.com/article/251103-yongye-international-why-this-stock-s-story-is-too-good-to-be-true and http://seekingalpha.com/article/259656-yongye-s-recent-filings-raise-various-red-flags

Report this comment
#6) On May 18, 2012 at 4:26 PM, TMFAleph1 (95.09) wrote:

My bad -- I realized this after I posted. For some reason, I thought that goldminingXpert was one of Chris Barker's usernames.

I flagged my earlier comment for removal.

Nice call on Yongye.

Report this comment
#7) On May 18, 2012 at 4:36 PM, zzlangerhans (99.80) wrote:

Ian, when you get a little older and more experienced you'll understand how noble it is to donate half your investment and half the investment of everyone who follows your advice to hungry executives of fraudulent Chinese companies.

Report this comment
#8) On May 18, 2012 at 4:46 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

ZZ: I honestly made very little money off Yongye. I wasn't short before writing either of those articles. I had not yet realized the entire Chinese RTO space was a scam, and thought Yongye was uniquely potentially fraudulent and wanted to warn people.

So, unfortunately, Mr. Zishen will be receiving very little charity from me. If you want to give him a donation, however, be my guest ;)

Report this comment
#9) On May 18, 2012 at 4:55 PM, dragonLZ (99.42) wrote:

An apology was in order long time ago. I was very disappointed in Tim after this comment (I got disappointed in his stock picks many months earlier):

#32) On August 14, 2011 at 9:13 PM, TMFMmbop (97.48) wrote:

I'm not in a position to comment on the merits of this debate, but I will say that I enjoy reading both Mark and Chris' work and have enjoyed this debate. As for Ian, you may be a lot of things, such as connoisseur of Mexican cuisine, but reading CitronResearch.com does not make you a Chinese fraud expert. Though maybe you have picked up Chinese language and forensic accounting skills in the past 6 months. Either way, I'm not really involved here.

Tim Hanson

Report this comment
#10) On May 18, 2012 at 4:57 PM, dragonLZ (99.42) wrote:

Or this one:

#34) On August 14, 2011 at 9:51 PM, TMFMmbop (97.48) wrote:

Ian, I don't know when you wanted people to short COGO, but pretty sure it was not before June 4, 2009: http://caps.fool.com/blogs/short-cogo-group/206249

Is YONG down from where you wrote about it? Yes. Is it the perfect company? No. Do I think my thesis will best yours over the long-term? Yes. We shall see -- and cost basis does matter in your assessment of the situation.

Finally, I don't *tout* anything. Both YONG and CMM were first recommended as small positions in diversified baskets of China exposure -- baskets that also included things like YUM and CHL. And every one of our baskets is beating its relevant China index since inception. Further, we are quite frank with Fools about metrics such as AR and CCC that remain worth watching in the case of something like YONG.

Do with that information what you will. My suspicion is that you'll ignore it and continue your ad hominem attacks in an attempt to build up your own reputation, but this thread is supposed to be about Chris, not me. My pal Otto simply alerted me to it, and I thought it was good reading.

Tim Hanson

Report this comment
#11) On May 18, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Option1307 (29.94) wrote:

YONG has one of the ugliest charts I've ever seen!

Nice call, again, on garbage Chinese RTO's.

+1

Report this comment
#12) On May 18, 2012 at 7:25 PM, outoffocus (21.97) wrote:

goldminingXpert 

Random question, but do you still play Wall Street Raider?

Report this comment
#13) On May 18, 2012 at 11:15 PM, awallejr (79.40) wrote:

I did find it amusing when you green thumbed it last month. 

Report this comment
#14) On May 19, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Estrogen (49.99) wrote:

My suspicion is that you'll ignore it and continue your ad hominem attacks in an attempt to build up your own reputation.  amateur investor, recent Colorado State University graduate, and lover of cats, chess, and Mexican food   Tim,  Whose ad hominem attacts?   I've always enjoyed and respected what you bring to the Fool, but your pride might be a bit out in front of you here?  If your original assertion was correct that Ian caused a 10% or $40 million dollar haircut,  he helped you and your fellow investors out with a buying opportunity.   As far as when Fools (or most people) personally visit company's HQ's, I'm beginning to question wherther it is a good move or not?  Dog and pony shows can be quite effective as evidenced by AIB, PACB, and ths little one here.  CEO's and high level officers tend to be have very persusive personalities.  I always emotionally feel better after an anylyst has visited with a company, but perhaps it is like eye witness accounts in front of a jury:  very effective, but not very accurate. I"d love to see the data on Fool calls where the company was visited.     Different opinions is what makes Motley Fool special.   Keep up the nice work all.  Estrogen   

Report this comment
#15) On May 19, 2012 at 5:12 AM, walt373 (99.84) wrote:

Haha... oh man. A little humility never hurts. It's a good hedge in case you turn out to be utterly, horribly wrong.

I find it curious how short sellers are still so vilified. Yes, they did make money by shorting stocks and then releasing reports on them. And that money was well-deserved. The fact that the market respects the shortsellers enough to produce a rapid sell-off probably has something to do with the fact that they have turned out to be overwhelmingly correct.

Without the shortsellers, these Chinese RTOs would still be flying high and we'd be up to our eyeballs in even more frauds as Chinese crooks continued swindling gullible American investors.

Report this comment
#16) On May 19, 2012 at 8:19 AM, zzlangerhans (99.80) wrote:

What about that Zuckerberg? That mother------- just made $20 billion in one day on the internet!

Report this comment
#17) On May 19, 2012 at 11:40 AM, nilesgold (23.84) wrote:

Are you truly as petty as to ask for an apology for an article written over a year ago?  Or since you chose to post this on a public forum, are you just looking for attention?  

Report this comment
#18) On May 19, 2012 at 12:16 PM, actuary99 (91.15) wrote:

With the disclaimer that I know far less than you AND this Hanson character, I can kind of see both sides here. 

The price for this company looks to confirm your point, but the financials still appear promising. I know that could be fraud, but hard to believe given they have a reputable auditor. Isn't it possible everyone will be wary of small Chinese companies for an indefinite period of time, and that was the reason for the price decline?

Having said that, his criticism + that of the commenters on your initial article was not very classy. 

 

Report this comment
#19) On May 19, 2012 at 12:48 PM, millsbob (< 20) wrote:

Hanson was also openly Very rude to me some time back when i dared to suggest that his thinly-veiled anti-Obama polemic might be out of place in TMF articles.

i notice that Global Gains seems to have gone dark: "no longer enrolling members", not on the overall Fool scoreboard. i guess he was dragging the results down too much.

Report this comment
#20) On May 19, 2012 at 1:18 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

I have some apologies of my own that I must make to fellow CAPS community members and will be doing so on this blog next week. Apologies are not a one way street, and I have made a lot of mistakes for which I am sorry.

I have been at an introspective place in life recently, and thinking a lot about the wrongs I have done and the wrongs that have been done to me. Perhaps I should have started by apologizing to others, as I certainly did not mean for this to come off as a publicity stunt as Nilesgold suggested. In my time at CAPS, I have been overly aggressive, rude, and simplistic at times, and have drawn a lot of warranted criticism. 

/

Responding to comments:

Yes, I greenthumbed YONG recently. CAPS is a game ... and I am out for score leadership status, ownership of the score leader box is close at hand ... but certainly that green thumb was short lived and my long term opinion remains negative clearly.

Millsbob: I believe Hanson was promoted/moved to another position at MF. I am not sure if that was driven by performance at Global Gains or not ... I have no idea what its performance track record was. I do agree with you that MF seems to be wrong community for anti Obama polemics, though I have not read the article you are referring to. 

Estrogen: In my experience, many great investors with a bent to the short side do not visit companies. Jim Chanos, for example, a pioneer in the short selling field, never visits companies. He has said that you can learn more from reading the SEC filings of a company than speaking with management or seeing a tour of stuff the company wants you to see.

As an interesting aside, I would note that I did not short Yongye until after I published the last of my articles about the company. After my final article, Sam Yu, the CFO of Yongye, called me again and practically begged me to leave his company alone. He said my articles were causing them emotional distress and he sounded on the verge of tears. He remained unable to provide logical answers to several of my questions from my articles, and kept telling me that I did not understand how business operated in China.

It was after this phone call ... after I had finished writing about Yongye ... that I finally bought puts on the company. So, I guess, talking to management can be useful to the extent that it makes you either sell a long position or motivates you to initiate a short, but management is, at the end of the day, promotional of their stock by nature.

It is what they are paid to do ... to create shareholder value. Management will never tell you it is a bad time to invest in their company. Any halfway capable management team should be able to make a good case for their stock as an investment, particularly if they show you a nice tour, give you dinner, and then take you out for some adult beverages.

 

 

Report this comment
#21) On May 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

YONG may or may not be a fraud, I have no idea and I don't care.

But, GMX, I think you owe an apology to the other companies in the fertilizer industry who use humic/fulvic acid in their products. And, an apology to your readers who may have been misinformed in your crusade against all things related to YONG.

Your article claimed that these types of products are ineffective & unsupported by scientific evidence (which is completely untrue). This could have a negative effect not only on YONG, but also on the hundreds of honest companies in the world who sell similar products.

Perhaps you can respond to this blog and the 10 peer-reviewed articles cited therein?

If you issue a correction to your article, I will never bring this up again.

Report this comment
#22) On May 19, 2012 at 2:23 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

ETFsRule: I am honored that you think an article by a economics major who now works in finance could harm the business of hundreds of fertilizer companies around the world. You assign me a lot of power I do not have.

The truth is that Yongye claims that internal studies show that for every 1 rmb spent on Yongye’s products, customers will get a return of 10 rmb.

This is an amazing ... truly amazing claim. 1000 percent returns for farmers from Shengmingsu. Miraculous, no? When I questioned that fulvic acid could have such amazing yields, they answered me by citing the research of a Dr. Pettit. Here is his website: http://ascensionpaths.com/ 

According to the Yongye press release, this Dr. Pettit has proof that fulvic acid is effective. I will let you judge Dr. Pettit by his website. If I recall correctly, which I may not ... it has been awhile ... humic acid is effective as a fertilizer. Fulvic acid is unproven as an extract of humic acid. Neither compound can produce anything close to the returns Yongye promises to farmers.

Maybe fulvic acid is a really effective fertilizer and Yongye was simply unaware of any real science in favor of it and instead cited a quack scientist. That is certainly possible.

Report this comment
#23) On May 19, 2012 at 5:07 PM, awallejr (79.40) wrote:

After my final article, Sam Yu, the CFO of Yongye, called me again and practically begged me to leave his company alone. He said my articles were causing them emotional distress and he sounded on the verge of tears. He remained unable to provide logical answers to several of my questions from my articles, and kept telling me that I did not understand how business operated in China.

Did that really happen?  That in and of itself would be a redflag for me about the company.

Report this comment
#24) On May 19, 2012 at 5:18 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"I am honored that you think an article by a economics major who now works in finance could harm the business of hundreds of fertilizer companies around the world. You assign me a lot of power I do not have."

That's not the point. You are responsible for what you write.

If you couldn't find western studies supporting these chemicals, then you must not have been looking very hard.

"Fulvic acid is unproven as an extract of humic acid."

Not true. See articles 3 and 5 in my link above. They deal with pure fulvic acid. Besides, your article tried to insinuate that neither humic nor fulvic acids are beneficial.

"Maybe fulvic acid is a really effective fertilizer and Yongye was simply unaware of any real science in favor of it and instead cited a quack scientist. That is certainly possible."

Maybe his views on the afterlife are "out there", but he is a PhD & an Emeritus Associate Professor at Texas A&M University.

Regardless, I don't hold it against the company that their researchers did not take the time to provide these answers to their PR department. These products are so widely-used, it is not really necessary. It would be like asking for a scientific study proving that pencils are useful as writing instruments.

Report this comment
#25) On May 19, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Valyooo (99.41) wrote:

Gmx,

 

What do you do for a living? 

Report this comment
#26) On May 20, 2012 at 9:15 AM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

Outoffocus: Yes

Valyooo: I work in finance as a consultant. 

Report this comment
#27) On May 21, 2012 at 11:51 AM, cthomas1017 (98.52) wrote:

ETF,

Just because one uses latin in one's resume, does not impress me.  Emeritus means "former".  So Petti is a FORMER ASSOCIATE professor from Texas A&M.  That was almost 20 years ago and he's done nothing of substance since.  Oh wait, he's discovered a secret diet that causes one to live forever..  Damn, how has CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, CBS, The Discovery Channel, and every other major media outlet to overlooked Pettit.  Google this guy and read his current website.  The word "crackpot" really doesn't do this guy justice. 

Report this comment
#28) On May 21, 2012 at 11:56 AM, cthomas1017 (98.52) wrote:

Here.  Let me save you a little work... http://www.lighttechnology.com/authors/pettit-dr-robert-e

Report this comment
#29) On May 21, 2012 at 2:06 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

My first post only because I really don't like science being missunderstood. 

 ETFsRule

 "Perhaps you can respond to this blog and the 10 peer-reviewed articles cited therein?"

As a PhD in biomedical sciences with undergraduate degree in Biochemistry, if there is one thing I have learned is that not all peer-reviewed articles are created equal... For example I actually took the time to read the first two articles you listed in your blog... To summarize they state humic acid promote root growth not shoot growth N.B. in conditions where all other essential minerals were added. And if you add too much of humic acid you will kill the plant.  

 Neither of the article are saying that humic acid by itself is the only fertilizer that you need. I do agree with you that it can be beneficial but I think goldmingxpert is saying that it's not the cure all implied by the company.

As a part time gardner too low ph (which humic acid will give the soil) can also kill certain plants or inhibit certain plant growth.. So it's good to add to plants that like low ph. In essence it doesn't seem to be the next miracle grow as promoted by the company.  It's just another mineral that will help certain plants grow better.

I also agree with cthomas1017 .  He was an "Associate" professor, which is easier to obtain than professor and the length of associate professor should also be a flag...

Finally I'd like to disclose my bias against Chinese stock mainly because I was born in China and completed my education in US. I know first hand how corrupt the Chinese business and government relationship runs.  

Report this comment
#30) On May 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM, awallejr (79.40) wrote:

This:  I know first hand how corrupt the Chinese business and government relationship runs.  

 

kind of addresses this: He remained unable to provide logical answers to several of my questions from my articles, and kept telling me that I did not understand how business operated in China.

From someone who has questioned a person or two during my career, whenever someone makes a gratuitous comment laced with innuendo you have to jump on it and question further. I really would have been interested to know what his answers would have been.

Report this comment
#31) On May 22, 2012 at 9:52 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"As a PhD in biomedical sciences with undergraduate degree in Biochemistry, if there is one thing I have learned is that not all peer-reviewed articles are created equal... For example I actually took the time to read the first two articles you listed in your blog... To summarize they state humic acid promote root growth not shoot growth N.B. in conditions where all other essential minerals were added."

Yes. The benefit of humic and fulvic acids is that they aid in nutrient uptake. You still need the essential nutrients.

YONG's fertilizers contain humic and fulvic acids, plus the essential minerals that plants require. This was clearly outlined in my article (I am Deepfryer on here and on SA). The first sentence explained this - along with a link to YONG's product description page.

"And if you add too much of humic acid you will kill the plant."

Irrelevant. When used correctly, it results in greatly improved plant growth, as many studies have proven.

Adding too much water will also kill a plant. So this point isn't really much of a point at all.

"Neither of the article are saying that humic acid by itself is the only fertilizer that you need."

True (again, YONG's products are not only humic acid).

"I do agree with you that it can be beneficial but I think goldmingxpert is saying that it's not the cure all implied by the company."

I don't think so. If you read his article, he was entirely dismissive of humic and fulvic acids. And he claimed that he could not find a single western study proving their effectiveness.

The only thing misleading was his original article - hence the need for my counterpoint.

"As a part time gardner too low ph (which humic acid will give the soil) can also kill certain plants or inhibit certain plant growth.. So it's good to add to plants that like low ph. In essence it doesn't seem to be the next miracle grow as promoted by the company.  It's just another mineral that will help certain plants grow better."

You could argue that any kind of fertilizer can be harmful or ineffective if it is used incorrectly. That type of argument is nothing more than grasping at straws. For instance, a typical ammonia-based fertilizer will also affect the pH of the soil, and can be harmful in some instances. Link.

There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of humic and fulvic acids in improving plant growth. And there are hundreds of companies around the world selling these types of products.

If that isn't enough for you, then I don't understand what you are looking for.

Report this comment
#32) On May 22, 2012 at 12:27 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule 

"Irrelevant. When used correctly, it results in greatly improved plant growth, as many studies have proven." 

My point was that if you are to cite scientific articles make sure you read and understand the results... Also order of articles you cite makes a difference... I was just trying to point out that the first two articles you cited did not prove that "There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of humic and fulvic acids in improving plant growth."

As summarized before the articles indicate root grow and not shoot growth... More root  with no extra shoot growth does not  indicate a successful addictive that will give you more plants.

Perhaps you did post articles that give definitive result to prove your point but unfortunatly they were not first on your list where they should be.  

Your entire argument against Goldmingxpert hinges upon proof that fumeric acid will leads to more plant growth and yet the first two articles you quoted did NOT prove your statement. Also what about the article that Goldmingxpert quoted as showing that fumeric acid have no effect on nutrient uptake/productivity? So far the first two articles you posted only support Goldmingxpert's statement about fumeric acid. 

Finally from an investor point of view If humeric acid is so great then what make Yongye's product so special that a competitor can't make when "there are hundreds of companies around the world selling these types of products." as you stated

PS I did take a look at YONG's product discription page and it really did not impove my view of their science... Maybe something is lost in translation but spraying the product on the leaf of the plant will not improve nutrient absoprtion, it should be used on roots of the plant... Bio101 leaf is where photosynthesis occur...  

'If that isn't enough for you, then I don't understand what you are looking for."

Again I'm looking for this scientific proof that as you repeatly stated fumeric acid improve plant growth... more root does not equal more growth was the result from the papers you cited.  

"Regardless, I don't hold it against the company that their researchers did not take the time to provide these answers to their PR department. These products are so widely-used, it is not really necessary. It would be like asking for a scientific study proving that pencils are useful as writing instruments'  A scientist would never make this generalized statement because we have to prove even the most obvious. As an investor if you don't hold a company accountable for their research logically this implies that you didn't do your own research?

I also think it's ludicrous that one article can bring down a solid company. No insult ment to GoldmingXpert I think you are giving him too much credit and power to be able to bring down a company based on one article. 

Report this comment
#33) On May 22, 2012 at 1:18 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"My point was that if you are to cite scientific articles make sure you read and understand the results... "

Agreed.

"I was just trying to point out that the first two articles you cited did not prove that "There are plenty of peer-reviewed studies showing the effectiveness of humic and fulvic acids in improving plant growth.""

And you were incorrect.

"As summarized before the articles indicate root grow and not shoot growth... More root  with no extra shoot growth does not  indicate a successful addictive that will give you more plants."

False. Both articles indicate extra shoot growth as well as root growth.

It sounds like your reading comprehension is the problem here... unless you are really GMX and this is just a gimmick account that you created in order to argue with me.

From #1:

"significant positive correlation was established between rate of HA application and plant height (r = 0.57), stem diameter (r = 0.77) and total dry matter yield (r = 0.67) "

And #2:

"Shoots generally show similar trends in growth response to humic substances but the magnitude of the growth response is less."

Case closed.

"Perhaps you did post articles that give definitive result to prove your point but unfortunatly they were not first on your list where they should be.  "

All 10 articles clearly showed increased plant growth from using humic or fulvic acids.

"Your entire argument against Goldmingxpert hinges upon proof that fumeric acid will leads to more plant growth and yet the first two articles you quoted did NOT prove your statement."

Once again, this is false.

"Also what about the article that Goldmingxpert quoted as showing that fumeric acid have no effect on nutrient uptake/productivity?"

Ahh, so you are pointing to 1 article in order to "prove a negative"? Not very scientific of you, in my opinion.

That study only dealt with 1 species of tomato. I find the 10 articles that I cited much more convincing than this 1 counter-example.

I'm sure that for any type of fertilizer, you could find at least 1 example where it was ineffective.

"Finally from an investor point of view If humeric acid is so great then what make Yongye's product so special that a competitor can't make when "there are hundreds of companies around the world selling these types of products." as you stated"

I have no opinion, positive or negative, on YONG as an investment decision.

"PS I did take a look at YONG's product discription page"

I assume you mean their "description" page, but regardless...

In your earlier sentence you said: "To summarize they state humic acid promote root growth not shoot growth N.B. in conditions where all other essential minerals were added."

I assume the bold was for emphasis, implying that you thought YONG's products used acids alone, without nutrients? Otherwise, that was a very strange choice of words to put in bold letters. Maybe you really did read the product page, but your sentence above is what led me to believe that you did not understand their products.

"Maybe something is lost in translation but spraying the product on the leaf of the plant will not improve nutrient absoprtion, it should be used on roots of the plant... Bio101 leaf is where photosynthesis occur... "

Again, this is another point that I addressed in my blog post. If you read the entire blog, why don't you respond to what I said on this topic, instead of ignoring it?

Anyway, do you have any peer-reviewed research showing that spraying these products on the leaved of plants will not improve nutrient absoprtion?

Articles 5 and 10 in my blog clearly demonstrate that foliar application is effective.

"Again I'm looking for this scientific proof that as you repeatly stated fumeric acid improve plant growth... more root does not equal more growth was the result from the papers you cited. "

Root growth is a type of plant growth. And as I mentioned earlier, each study shows overall plant growth, not just root growth.

"A scientist would never make this generalized statement because we have to prove even the most obvious."

False. I work as a chemist, and in order to perform my job I have never been required to prove that the sky is blue.

Also: YONG's PR team does not consist of scientists. But this point seems to be lost on you.

"I also think it's ludicrous that one article can bring down a solid company. No insult ment to GoldmingXpert I think you are giving him too much credit and power to be able to bring down a company based on one article. "

I never gave him credit for having the power to "bring down a solid company". However, this article could potentially have a negative effect on YONG as well as other companies in this industry.

Report this comment
#34) On May 22, 2012 at 6:12 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule,

Please disclose your personal bias in your defense of this industry... Why are you so worred that "However, this article could potentially have a negative effect on YONG as well as other companies in this industry." That sounds like a statement for bias. Because I'm about to blow your "scientific" peer reviewed so called papers out of the water as not worth the paper its printed on. 

"It sounds like your reading comprehension is the problem here... unless you are really GMX and this is just a gimmick account that you created in order to argue with me."  

Also for your information my reading comprehension is much better than yours especially in judging real scientific articles. I am not GMX because I do have a PhD in biomedical science as mentioned above GMX is a financial consultant not a PhD in the sciences and last I checked he is not female either. This consistant personal attack/paranoia only made me suspect your scientific knowledge more... So now I will take direct quotes from your own blog to prove your lack of scientific knowledge on the subject of humic acid and hidden bias. 

"I have found that there are literally dozens, if not hundreds, of western studies supporting the effectiveness of humic and fulvic acids in increasing crop productivity."... "I selected ten of the most directly-relevant studies to include here. All of them appeared in highly-regarded, peer-reviewed, scientific journals related to the field of agriculture. " 

1st: I'd like to mention the newest so called research article published on this topic was published in 1990 (according to your list).

2nd: I can't get full access to the journal articles because they cost $43 thus I will have to rely on the less than informatic abstracts which doesn't give you a lot of important details.

3rd: Let me just point out that the 1st, 4th and 6th article you listed are from the same journal...The Journal of Plant Nutrition... sounds scientifc and impressive right? NOT... In plant science this journal has an impact factor 0.7 which is low meaning that its not referenced nor highly reguarded in real scientific circles. As a matter of fact it's Ranking is: 123/188 near the bottom of published articles which means if you give them money they will publish you and the science is considered laughable in these low impact and low ranked journals

4th: Your 2nd so called article is not even a real  article I should have been more suspicious when there were no numbers in the abstract to show at least experiments were done. This so called article is actual a conference paper/opinion read at the Proceedings of a symposium (which is a meeting for scientist) in this case cosponsored by the "International  Humic Substances Society In Chicago" Wow such an unbiased article (yep I'm trying to be sarcastic) no wonder its never really published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.   

5th: I did look up the other journal titles and found their impact factor to be a little higher but not much as in highest of impact factor of 2. (really bad journals).  

"From #1:

"significant positive correlation was established between rate of HA application and plant height (r = 0.57), stem diameter (r = 0.77) and total dry matter yield (r = 0.67) "

Okay this is the first article lets pretend that it was published in a decent journal... I'm assuming that the r value is the statistic valued used in correlation studies (since I was not going to pay $43 to read the article). Thus to have correlation it needs to be close to 1 and squared. If you do that there is no significant correlation. Significant being close to 1 for r squared. Even using r value anything below 0.85 is not significant. I really don't think the r presented means radius for size.  

2nd half of this comment will be more educational 

 

Report this comment
#35) On May 22, 2012 at 6:46 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

ETFsRule 

I found it funny that you accuse GMX of not doing his scientific research when he wrote the blog, especially when your blog include a lot of non-scientific assumptions that you are claiming to be facts.  

Here I will try to teach bio 101 because in my previous post #32 I made the wrong assumption that you know basic plant structure/biology. I agee bio 101 and plant biology is not important for a chemist but when talking about foliar spraying it is essential.

"Here I should mention that foliar spraying is a common technique where fertilizer is applied directly onto the leaves of a plant, instead of being added to the soil. YONG's products are often used in this way"  from your blog  I personally can not find a good scientific article that support the effectness of foliar spraying and I'll explain to you why real scientist may not waste time on proving according to you "why the sky is blue..."

The leaf is where photosynthesis occurs... Each leaf contain cells that have cell wall . The wall act to block water from entering the cell (thus blocking other molecules that are bigger than water). Another structure called the stoma is usally located on the underside of the leaves they are small pore like structures that allow the leaf to "breath"  e.g. exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen and release water vapors. 

The ridget cell wall of plant cell prevent even water from entering the leaf... The only opening is the stoma/plure is stomata. Unfortunatly the stoma is only large enough to let water molecule enter or exit... the structure of fumic acid is way too big to enter the plant via the leaf. 

Please explain to me how foliar spraying can deliever essential nutrients to the plant via the leaf?  Not being a plant biologist I might have missed a structure on the leaf that will allow macromolecules like fumic acid enter the plant via the leaf. Thanks in advance 

Report this comment
#36) On May 22, 2012 at 7:26 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"Please disclose your personal bias in your defense of this industry... "

I have no bias, although it seems that you do.

If someone is going to bring "science" into the discussion when bashing a company, they need to do a lot more research than what GMX has done here.

Now, regarding your points #3 and #5 about impact factors - I find these points to be very interesting, considering you just wrote this:

"Also what about the article that Goldmingxpert quoted as showing that fumeric acid have no effect on nutrient uptake/productivity?"

This begs the question - why are you so quick to accept his source, and so quick to criticize my sources?

A quick check reveals that his source (HortScience) has an impact factor of 0.7. So an impact factor of 2 is "really bad", but you have no problem with his source, which has a much lower impact factor?

I can only conclude that your argument about impact factors was disingenuous, and the only possible explanation is that you are biased. Maybe GMX is your brother?

"Thus to have correlation it needs to be close to 1 and squared. If you do that there is no significant correlation. Significant being close to 1 for r squared. Even using r value anything below 0.85 is not significant."

This is a patently ridiculous argument and shows a tragic lack of understanding of statistics.

Report this comment
#37) On May 22, 2012 at 7:47 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"The ridget cell wall of plant cell prevent even water from entering the leaf... "

I don't know if I should take you seriously anymore, but many proteins and other large molecules are transported regularly through the cell membrane and the cell wall. For instance, from here:

"Like gap junctions, plasmodesmata are open channels that connect the cytosol of adjacent cells and permit the diffusion of molecules with a molecular weight up to 1000, including a variety of metabolic and signaling compounds. However, during the trafficking of macromolecules, this limit increases to greater than 10,000 MW."

And from my 10th source:

"The activation of many processes accompanied
emergence of primary root and the emergence of shoot.
Metabolic changes due to permeability of humic acid into
leaf cells and effect of Zn pre treatment to embryonic cells
might be the causative agent of variations in results and
improved effects as are clearly demonstrated in the yield
and yield components except protein which showed
reduction in quality. The stimulating effect of humic acid
and Zn pretreatment has been related in part to enhanced
uptake of mineral nutrients. Many authors (Rauthan &
Schnitzer, 1981; Chen & Aviad, 1990; Fagbenro &
Agboole, 1993) have reported increased uptake of macro
and microelements influenced by humic acid substances.
When applying humic acid substances to young plants some
of the humic acid also got sprayed on to the soil. It is
assumed that, this also created a synergetic effect during
uptake of nutrients by plants from soil (Lee & Bartlett,
1976; Vaughan & Malcom, 1985; David et al., 1994)
suggesting existence of synergetic effect of combined
applications of mineral nutrients and humic acid substances.
Another explanation could be the effect of humic acid substances in manner similar to plant growth substances
(O’Donnel 1973; Casenave de Sanfilippo et al., 1990)."

Lastly, the numbers don't lie. I have cited studies proving that foliar spraying is effective. You have cited absolutely nothing.

Report this comment
#38) On May 22, 2012 at 9:37 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule

"I can only conclude that your argument about impact factors was disingenuous, and the only possible explanation is that you are biased. Maybe GMX is your brother?" 

Sorry I didn't mean to single out your sources as being unacceptable...  GMX's source is unacceptable too but he did not base his entire blog on science. Your entire article is based on that" highly regarded scientific articles" can prove that humic acid works.. From the the impact factor of the articles you quoted and that symposium article I would conclude you have no scientific proof that humic acids works... At the same time I agree with you GMX can not say that there are good scientific proof that humic acid does not work either. Not sure what your point is with your 10th source? Its a paper published in Turkey and many papers including bad ones (low impact factor) will have cited sources and look legit. 

Thus my point is that if you can't find "real" scientific data to support your and GMX's point about humic acid's abilities then leave the science out. If you leave the science out GMX's blog is more about sketchy accounting and your blog would be irrelevent. I will never argue with you about accounting because that's not my area of expertise. 

"Thus to have correlation it needs to be close to 1 and squared. If you do that there is no significant correlation. Significant being close to 1 for r squared. Even using r value anything below 0.85 is not significant.

This is a patently ridiculous argument and shows a tragic lack of understanding of statistics."  

I never claim to be a mathmatician, I know that there are many r value I did mention I wasn't sure which stat the r refer to so instead of belittling someone why don't you try to explain the stats? People who avoid answering a question ususally means they don't know the answer. Although its mute since the source of the article is not very scientific.

 "Lastly, the numbers don't lie. I have cited studies proving that foliar spraying is effective. You have cited absolutely nothing." 

Sorry I read your blog many times and none of the articles relate to the effectiveness of foliar spraying... The only link you provided for foliar spraying is to a wikipedia page on it with two reference. the first reference is a website that stated foliar spraying effectiveness is contraversal. The other reference was a dead link... I like wikipedia but I don't think it can represent "cited studies" 

Finally stop googling words to make your point because from your response to my points I can tell you never studied biology and have no background when it comes to real scientific research and how real scientific journals are rated/analzyed and ranked. 

Again bio101 that just googling my sentence will not give you the correct response.

"I don't know if I should take you seriously anymore, but many proteins and other large molecules are transported regularly through the cell membrane and the cell wall. For instance, from here:"

Basic difference between mamalian cells vs plant cells is the precence of a cell wall. Cell membrane is not the cell wall. Mamalian cell membrane are more permeable than plant cell wall.  Plant cell wall are less permeable because it need to resist osmotic pressure. 

""Like gap junctions, plasmodesmata are open channels that connect the cytosol of adjacent cells and permit the diffusion of molecules with a molecular weight up to 1000, including a variety of metabolic and signaling compounds. However, during the trafficking of macromolecules, this limit increases to greater than 10,000 MW.""

Bascially this is saying that channel connects cells next to each other but note that nothing is said about connecting the cells above you... "cytosol" is liquid part of the cell so no plasmodesmata will connect you to the side of the cell exposed to the outside environment. Basically a leaf structure has many layers top and bottom layer is like our skin.. composed of cells connected to each other.  But unlike our skin there are no holes to allow things to get into our skin like layer in the plant because of cell wall. Yes like our skin cells next to each other have junctions to communicate and pass macromolecules... But  note NO holes above where surface of leaf is except for the stoma as I mentioned before." Thus no way for big molecule to enter the plant via the leaf. 

A close example would be a blue rose... You make a blue rose by putting the stem of a white rose in blue dye and this prove the root take up macronutrients becuase the rose will be blue. If you foliar spray the tip of white petals with a dye or the leaf you will not see the dye travel to the stem of the rose because there is no plasmodesmata on the surface of the plant.  A fun science project for kids to try. 

I hope I made it clear biologically why foliar spraying would be ineffective. http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/plants/leaf/ this site has a nice diagram of a leaf cross section.  

 I am not picking on you or GMX just correcting the science. I'm really happy I can find people interested in science on a finance board. 

I guess as your and GMX's scientifc peer reviewer. I just don't think there is good science to prove either your or GMX's point about humic acid's effectiveness. 

Report this comment
#39) On May 22, 2012 at 11:26 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"From the the impact factor of the articles you quoted and that symposium article I would conclude you have no scientific proof that humic acids works..."

It is completely absurd to argue that there is "no scientific proof" when I have shown you scientific proof in the form of peer-reviewed articles.

The impact factor has little to do with the scientific validity of a paper. It simply means that the journal hasn't been cited very much - which you would expect in the case of something as simple as humic acid, which is already a very well-established and widely-used technology.

"I never claim to be a mathmatician, I know that there are many r value I did mention I wasn't sure which stat the r refer to so instead of belittling someone why don't you try to explain the stats? People who avoid answering a question ususally means they don't know the answer. Although its mute since the source of the article is not very scientific."

You mean it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point. For a PhD student you sure make a lot of basic spelling and grammatical errors.

I never avoiding answering a question. Yes, the r values refer to the coefficients of determination, as in the "r-squared" value. However, you claimed that a value under 0.85 is meaningless. Who told you that?? Certainly not a professor from a PhD-level science class.

"Basic difference between mamalian cells vs plant cells is the precence of a cell wall. Cell membrane is not the cell wall. Mamalian cell membrane are more permeable than plant cell wall. Plant cell wall are less permeable because it need to resist osmotic pressure. "

Surely you mean the "presence" of a cell wall.

And, my link was clearly describing plant cell walls, not animal cell walls. The title of the page is "The Dynamic Plant Cell Wall". Why are you giving these rebuttals that have nothing to do with what I posted?

"But note NO holes above where surface of leaf is except for the stoma as I mentioned before." Thus no way for big molecule to enter the plant via the leaf. "

You are confusing their function with their actual size. Yes, the purpose of plant stomata is to regulate the movement of gases such as CO2 and Oxygen. However that does not mean that other molecules cannot also pass through them when the stomata are open. 

The mean size of the open pores of plant stomata is 17.7x6.7 microns, and the mean area is 92 square microns. That is from here.

So, of course that is more than large enough for fulvic acid to pass through, because fulvic acid has a particle size several orders of magnitude smaller than that. Fulvic acid can be supplied at a particle size of less than 1 micron.

"A close example would be a blue rose... You make a blue rose by putting the stem of a white rose in blue dye and this prove the root take up macronutrients becuase the rose will be blue. If you foliar spray the tip of white petals with a dye or the leaf you will not see the dye travel to the stem of the rose because there is no plasmodesmata on the surface of the plant. A fun science project for kids to try. "

Yes, some things will not pass through the stomata... especially if the stomata are closed, or if the particle size of the dye is too large.

"I guess as your and GMX's scientifc peer reviewer. I just don't think there is good science to prove either your or GMX's point about humic acid's effectiveness."

Hilarious.

Report this comment
#40) On May 23, 2012 at 1:07 AM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule

“The impact factor has little to do with the scientific validity of a paper. It simply means that the journal hasn't been cited very much - which you would expect in the case of something as simple as humic acid, which is already a very well-established and widely-used technology.”

Impact factor has a lot to do with scientific validity it also indicates the strength of the paper because higher impact means better peer-reviewed paper thus better experiments. Why don’t you try actually reading a high impact journal such as Science and/or Nature… If “humic acid is well established and widely-used technology” I should be able to find proof in the backlog of these high impact journals.

Again you dismissed my valid point of the quality of a journal correlates to the quality of the research. By the way I understand statistics just fine. Your statement only proves my point about the statistic used at a “real PhD level science class requires higher standards then I guess non-PhD level? A PhD level science require higher r-squared value to publish in an okay journal and if you set your r value standard so low then you are not ruling out coincidence.

“The title of the page is "The Dynamic Plant Cell Wall". Why are you giving these rebuttals that have nothing to do with what I posted?”  I really didn’t think you read the page you posted because intercellular exchange talked about a matrix (intracellular) is a lot different than what I was trying to say about exchange of a plant leaf with its exterior environment… You were trying to prove macromolecule could be absorbed by the leaf?  The cross section of the leaf link I posted show via drawing the only opening is the stomata. By mentioning cell wall I was trying to show why only opening on a leaf is the stomata, I admit my failure as a teacher (probably why I don’t want to teach).

“You are confusing their function with their actual size. Yes, the purpose of plant stomata is to regulate the movement of gases such as CO2 and Oxygen. However that does not mean that other molecules cannot also pass through them when the stomata are open. “

I went to the page you linked and congratulations it’s a well researched scientific article from Nature. But in this case you are making scientific assumptions without doing any experiment to prove your point. The paper only gave sizes of stomata in different plants it did not say in any shape and form the stomata will let all kinds of particles smaller than its maximum opening to go through. The thought of an unregulated pore in mammalian cells would lead to disaster and cell death. So why am I confusing their function with their size? You are the one trying to link things together that are not scientifically proven.

So your hypothesis is that because fulvic acid is smaller than the somata pore size then it will diffuse into the plant. Okay great hypothesis now where is the experimental data? I’ll even setup the experiment for you… Use radio labeled fulvic acid to see how much gets into the plant. Please don’t give me the run around by saying the result would be obvious because in science you have to back up your statements with experimental data… Otherwise it’s like I’m saying the sun revolves around the Earth because I see it rises in the east and set in the west.  

Sorry I apologize for my snarky comments but I’m tired of you defending your “science”, by using a typical political move called “mudslinging” and you are also very good at misdirection. E.g. “you are GMX’s sister…. For a PhD student you sure make a lot of basic spelling and grammatical errors…” None of these comments are relevant to the science. My problem with your entire defense is that the science that you quoted as proof is not sound no matter how much mud you sling at me as a person… I also stated the same for GMX’s “scientific” portion of his blog.  So laugh because based on your tactics you are a great salesman but I’m not buying.  I’m content that I’m quoting from scientific sources correctly. Citing and understanding the published sources is something else a PhD is required to learn.     

  

Report this comment
#41) On May 23, 2012 at 5:28 AM, Charbroil121 (83.90) wrote:

Has anyone actually proved that Yongye is a fraud? That was Ian's original argument, and as far as I can tell from a cursory look through the news, no one has proved that the stores don't exist, or that fulvic/humic acid don't work the way that Yongye says they do, or that Yongye used related party transactions to hide something nefarious?

If any of these accusations that Ian brought up in his original argument do end up being true, then Tim needs to apologize (or at least admit he was wrong). However, I don't think the decline in Yongye's stock proves Ian's original arguments--especially when Ian's article helped begin the decline.

As far as I can tell, Yongye's decline has been caused by general--if well grounded--hysteria about Chinese companies in addition to Yongye's Accounts Receivables problems. The former is irrelevant and the latter simply happened to appear a little after Ian's article.

In short, you can't demand an apology for dismissing an argument before evidence proving that argument true actually appears.

(On a side bar, though, I personally found Ian's article fairly convincing, even if I think it's a little early to be claiming vindication)

Report this comment
#42) On May 23, 2012 at 9:08 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"Impact factor has a lot to do with scientific validity it also indicates the strength of the paper because higher impact means better peer-reviewed paper thus better experiments."

Incorrect. As I just explained, the impact factor is merely a ratio which tells you how often their papers were cited.

Also: none of my papers were at the "bottom", as you tried to imply. Even the lowest impact factor journals that I cited were just at the edge of the bottom third of journals for plant science. Most of the journals were significantly higher than that. So it is childish for you to imply that the research is "bad".

Perhaps this will help you understand impact factors a bit better:

Thomson Reuters does not depend on the impact factor alone in assessing the usefulness of a journal, and neither should anyone else. The impact factor should not be used without careful attention to the many phenomena that influence citation rates, as for example the average number of references cited in the average article.

"Again you dismissed my valid point of the quality of a journal correlates to the quality of the research. By the way I understand statistics just fine. Your statement only proves my point about the statistic used at a “real PhD level science class requires higher standards then I guess non-PhD level? A PhD level science require higher r-squared value to publish in an okay journal and if you set your r value standard so low then you are not ruling out coincidence."

Again, this is absurd. You are saying an r-value would not even be published if it is below your arbitrary value of 0.85? So, a value of 0.84 is worthless, but when it reaches 0.85 it magically becomes meaningful?

The truth is, obviously, any result will be published, regardless of its r2 value. The r2 value will be used when discussing the results.

"I went to the page you linked and congratulations it’s a well researched scientific article from Nature."

Yes, thank you Mr. Scientist. You also could have learned about stomata from any number of different sources, except obviously you did not take the time to learn anything about them. And, of course it is your responsibility to do so, because you are the one who brought up the topic of stomata.

"The thought of an unregulated pore in mammalian cells would lead to disaster and cell death."

Mammals don't have leaves, at least not the last time I checked.

"The paper only gave sizes of stomata in different plants it did not say in any shape and form the stomata will let all kinds of particles smaller than its maximum opening to go through."

Are you trying to imply that plant stomata have some way of preventing particles from going through, even when they are open? If that is your implication, then it is your responsibility to support it. What is this method??

"So your hypothesis is that because fulvic acid is smaller than the somata pore size then it will diffuse into the plant. Okay great hypothesis now where is the experimental data?"

It is in the links that I have provided.

Where is your data?

"My problem with your entire defense is that the science that you quoted as proof is not sound no matter how much mud you sling at me as a person"

You have done nothing to prove that any of my sources are unsound.

Report this comment
#43) On May 23, 2012 at 10:24 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

Also: you have failed to maintain a coherent position, therefore it is obvious that you are just grasping at straws in an effort to argue with me.

You said: "Unfortunatly the stoma is only large enough to let water molecule enter or exit... the structure of fumic acid is way too big to enter the plant via the leaf. "

As you can see, your argument was based entirely on the size of the stoma, and not on anything else. Therefore I have completely refuted your argument.

If you are going to change your position and argue that there is some other method for preventing fulvic acid from entering the leaf, then I hope this time you will provide some evidence to support your position.

Report this comment
#44) On May 23, 2012 at 12:01 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule

I obvious made the mistake that I am writing to a real scientist who appreciates science rather than a slick politician/salesman whose goal is to use a lot of misdirection/misinformation and a few spots of poor science to prove a point. Never mind by quoting Thomson Reuters a businessman to disprove my point about how to interpret impact factors for science journals I can conclude real science is not your goal.

Let me redirect you to your own quotes for evidence of your misdirection:

39 you:" The mean size of the open pores of plant stomata is 17.7x6.7 microns, and the mean area is 92 square microns. That is from here.

So, of course that is more than large enough for fulvic acid to pass through, because fulvic acid has a particle size several orders of magnitude smaller than that. Fulvic acid can be supplied at a particle size of less than 1 micron."

40: My rebuttal : The paper only gave sizes of stomata in different plants it did not say in any shape and form the stomata will let all kinds of particles smaller than its maximum opening to go through.   

42: Your response, “Yes, thank you Mr. Scientist. You also could have learned about stomata from any number of different sources, except obviously you did not take the time to learn anything about them. And, of course it is your responsibility to do so, because you are the one who brought up the topic of stomata."

Lots of insults and no science typical of your response to my scientific evidence

"Are you trying to imply that plant stomata have some way of preventing particles from going through, even when they are open? If that is your implication, then it is your responsibility to support it. What is this method??"

 Nope I don’t need to because there is no evidence for your assumption see my response quote in 40

"So your hypothesis is that because fulvic acid is smaller than the somata pore size then it will diffuse into the plant. Okay great hypothesis now where is the experimental data?"

It is in the links that I have provided.

You do this a lot. Use a lot of words to insult and say nothing then reference a random scientific link. Wow you are really creative so many questions when the answer is in my response in 40 summing up your link

"Where is your data?"

Now start the attack since you can’t prove your point by googeling now I have to prove to you that somata allows only water, carbon dioxide, oxygen through?

43: Your response (now I’m laughing):

“As you can see, your argument was based entirely on the size of the stoma, and not on anything else. Therefore I have completely refuted your argument.”

 Nope this was your idea see your response 39:  So you just rebutted your own logic for why foliar spray would work. Again no scientific evidence just grand statements  

 

"If you are going to change your position and argue that there is some other method for preventing fulvic acid from entering the leaf, then I hope this time you will provide some evidence to support your position."

Sorry I never changed my position you are the one doing it and since you can’t prove anything you try to put the burden of proof on me.. I don’t mind except I clearly proved my points but you keep changing the questions to make it seem as if I never proved anything… I hope by quoting your responses I have proven that being right is more important to you than the science.

42: sorry I had to include this quote from you;

“The truth is, obviously, any result will be published, regardless of its r2 value. The r2 value will be used when discussing the results.”

You obviously have never published in a high impact scientific journal because your truth is definitely not how scientific publishing works. Now I have to question your statistical knowledge not all r2 value is significant and if every result was published ignoring significance of r2 value then there is no need for peer-reviewed scientific paper is there?

42: Something you repeatedly say to my rebuttal:

“ You have done nothing to prove that any of my sources are unsound.”

My response is I have proven your and GMX’s so call scientific sources are unsound but I can’t force you to hear the truth if you insist on ignoring the evidence.

 

  

Report this comment
#45) On May 23, 2012 at 1:37 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 ETFsRule

With your strong background in economics (judging by your cap score) why don’t you use economics to prove GMX wrong? Why focus on a very small part of his non scientific article that he himself backtracked with “However, Yongye could be a good investment even if its product isn't particularly effective. “

The comments section from the article gives some sound rebuttals to his (GMX) numbers, especially the increase in number of stores. After googling the company and listening to some of his interviews (in Chinese) the company is doing well because it distributes directly to farmers so saving the increased marked up cost of the typical Chinese middle resellers.  This makes Yongye product cheaper than other comparable products on the market. In my opinion a sound economic argument for Yongye.

Yep I still don’t trust the science behind the product but you can judge this company based on economic factors too. So leave the science out of it unless you really know your science because I’m tired of real scientist being blamed for having their work misunderstood/misquoted/misused. Stick to what you know best and I know I'm not an economist.

Report this comment
#46) On May 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, cthomas1017 (98.52) wrote:

imagaine & ETF,

May I suggest that both of you either get a girlfriend or spend more time with your family?  Sheesh!

Report this comment
#47) On May 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"Never mind by quoting Thomson Reuters a businessman to disprove my point about how to interpret impact factors for science journals I can conclude real science is not your goal. "

Tell me, where do you think impact factors come from? Who collects the data and publishes them each year? You may feel a bit foolish if you look up the answer.

As for the rest of your reply, you are just re-hashing the same topics that I have successfully refuted. And you are ignoring the truth - the answers to each of your questions in comment 44 can be found in my previous 2 responses.

"So leave the science out of it unless you really know your science because I’m tired of real scientist being blamed for having their work misunderstood/misquoted/misused."

I am not interested in YONG, and I have my own methods for analyzing Chinese stocks. I don't consider YONG to be a company that I would invest in.

The science is the only interesting part, and the overwhelming scientific evidence is in favor of humic and fulvic acids being effective.

Also: I want to see if Ian has the maturity to issue a correction to the inaccurate part of his article. If he doesn't, then I don't see how any intelligent reader can trust anything that he writes.

It's not uncommon for a respected writer to issue a correction - there is no shame in it. So I want to see if Ian can act like an adult and do the right thing.

Report this comment
#48) On May 23, 2012 at 9:33 PM, imagaine4 (< 20) wrote:

 cthomas1017

You are totally right why should I waste my time disproving the science behind both GMX and ETF’s articles in seekingalpha?  Yep complete waste of my time it’s not like seekingalpha.com (business blog) actually hired a science writer to write their articles.

I am being sincere when I say very wise comment   cthomas1017 . On a side note: a boyfriend is more troublesome than debating with  ETFsRule :)

Report this comment
#49) On May 31, 2012 at 4:18 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

Wow! I hadn't looked at this blog in awhile. Quite the fevered commentary on both sides.

I am not a scientist and have no aspirations of acting as if I were one. As you all can see, there is reasonable skepticism about the effectiveness of humic acid, and if the product is in fact amazingly effective (something I am not sure of one way or the other), Yongye owes its investors a better explanation than quoting a flaky retired associate professor. 

Report this comment
#50) On June 16, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Realstromprophet (< 20) wrote:

Interesting to follow. I give the edge to imagaine4. The basics are, no well published scientific articles that easily explain the science and prove it works. Any empirical evidence anywhere? All else being equal, there's no enough transparity to recommend this company.

Report this comment
#51) On July 18, 2012 at 2:09 PM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

Tim Hanson's one formerly "winning" China pick, EDU, has now blown up, falling more than 50% this week on revelations of an SEC investigation and a Muddy Waters report.

Report this comment
#52) On July 18, 2012 at 7:06 PM, walt373 (99.84) wrote:

Checking out his CAPS page for some more short ideas...

Report this comment
#53) On July 18, 2012 at 7:07 PM, walt373 (99.84) wrote:

Looks like he red thumbed EDU btw

Report this comment
#54) On July 20, 2012 at 8:14 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

"Realstromprophet (< 20) wrote:

Interesting to follow. I give the edge to imagaine4. The basics are, no well published scientific articles that easily explain the science and prove it works. Any empirical evidence anywhere?"

I just saw this post and I am baffled by ther question. I assume you followed the discussion here but did not see my seeking alpha blog? The short answer is yes, there is empirical evidence. If those articles don't "easily explain" the subject, well, that is your opinion and it does not detract from the validity of the science.

Anyway, here is the evidence that I posted elsewhere:

1.
Effect of different levels of humic acid on the growth and nutrition uptake of teak seedlings.
Journal of Plant Nutrition, 17: 173–84
Fagbenro, J.A. and A.A. Agboole, 1993.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905921900

2.
Effect of humic substances on plant growth.
In : Humic substances in soil and crop science.
American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America, Madison, pp. 161–86
Chen, Y. and T. Aviad, 1990.
http://www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/19911950511.html

3.
Effect of a soil fulvic acid on the growth and nutrient content of cucumber (Cucumis sativus) plants.
Plant And Soil, 63: 491–5
Rauthan, B.S. and M. Schnitzer, 1981.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k182412422426241/

4.
The effect of commercial humic acid on tomato plant growth and mineral nutrition.
Journal of Plant Nutrition, Volume 21, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 561 - 575
Fabrizio Adania; Pierluigi Genevinia; Patrizia Zaccheoa; Graziano Zocchia.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905929787

5.
The effect of foliar application of fulvic acid on water use, nutrient uptake and yield in wheat.
Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 37 (4) 343 - 350
X Xudan
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=AR9860343

6.
A humic acid improves growth of tomato seedling in solution culture
Journal of Plant Nutrition, Volume 17, Issue 1, 1994, Pages 173 - 184
P. P. David; P. V. Nelson; D. C. Sanders
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a905888642

7.
Iron in Relation To the Stimulation of Growth By Humic Acid
Soil Science, June 1932, Volume 33, Issue 6, pages 413-454
Burk, Dean; Lineweaver, Hans; Horner, C. Kenneth
http://journals.lww.com/soilsci/Citation/1932/06000/Iron_in_Relation_To_the_Stimulation_of_Growth_By.2.aspx

8.
Effect of Humic Acid on Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Seedling Growth
Environmental and Experimental Botany, Volume 25, Issue 3, August 1985, Pages 245-252
Kauser A. Malik and F. Azam
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0098847285900085

9.
Effect Of Humic Acids On The Growth, Yield And Nutrient Content Of Sugarcane
Science of The Total Environment, Volumes 117-118, 30 May 1992, Pages 575-581
R. Govindasmy and S. Chandrasekaran
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0048969792901229

10.
Effect of Pre-Sowing Seed Treatment with Zinc and Foliar Spray of Humic Acids on Yield of Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).
International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. v. 7(6) p. 875-878
Muharrem Kaya, Mehmet Atak, Khalid Mahmood Khawar, Cemalettin Y. Çiftçi And Sebahattin Özcan
http://www.fspublishers.org/ijab/past-issues/IJABVOL_7_NO_6/3.pdf

Report this comment
#55) On July 20, 2012 at 8:14 AM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

.

Report this comment
#56) On July 20, 2012 at 11:59 AM, goldminingXpert (29.49) wrote:

Nice catch Walt. He was a big fan of EDU years ago, but he was wise to turn around and red thumb before the fraud was revealed. I give him major credit for that.

Report this comment
#57) On November 06, 2012 at 4:40 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

GMX: Over the past 6 months since you posted this blog, YONG has gained over 70%, and now the CEO is taking the company private.

I wonder if you have the maturity to admit that you were wrong and apologize to Mr. Hanson?

Report this comment
#58) On November 06, 2012 at 4:40 PM, ETFsRule (99.94) wrote:

.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement