by78
General
Could you furnish a link to or screenshot of the previous compliance report?
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Could you furnish a link to or screenshot of the previous compliance report?
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
It is disclosure meaning official quarterly or half yearly info that has to be release to the public since it is public company traded on the stock exchange. As Inst said the fact they include WS15 mean that they will be or shortly be the product of the company. If you know anything about finance. If they lie than they are liable to suit by the share holder as misleading company future earning .Or worst they might be delisted from Shenzhen exchange So it has to be seen in context. So your interpretation cannot be seen in isolation(This is not literature class or Chinese as secondary language class)
The same thing if drug company like Merck said in their quarterly disclosure they have anti cancer drug than it mean they will have that product shortly.It is the document that is scrutinized by analyst then he issue recommendation to buy or sell Then people make their mind as to buy or sell that stock. It is serious business
Last edited:
by78
General
Your original post states the following:
My reply was targeted at the above quote, specifically the bolded and underlined part. Nothing more, nothing less.
Your subsequent reply is beyond the original scope and tangential.
Last edited:
by78
General
That's not an official AVIC document. It is a research note from , a financial services company.
Here's the relevant passage:
Basically, it states nothing we don't already know: WS-15 and other turbofan and turboshaft programs exist and that steady progress is being made toward the eventual goal of self-sufficiency in aero-engines. The analysts behind this research note don't appear to have any insider information and were relying on open source information, such as China Aviation News.
So my question to you is this: have you actually read previous official AVIC compliance reports, as you had claimed?
Last edited:
Actually, my last message challenged you on your sincerity and on your intent. I messaged you because we have a strongly eristic tone to our conversation where your entire point is "get the hell off my forum", however coached in polite language.
Generally speaking, getting into prolonged personal arguments is not good for anyone's health, and while I was interested in obliging your questions, I won't, except through what I have already shown. Feel free to blurt as you'd like, I'm more interested right now in democraticizing CJDBY threads by translating them onto Sinodefenceforum.
Generally speaking, getting into prolonged personal arguments is not good for anyone's health, and while I was interested in obliging your questions, I won't, except through what I have already shown. Feel free to blurt as you'd like, I'm more interested right now in democraticizing CJDBY threads by translating them onto Sinodefenceforum.
by78
General
I agree with you, so let's not dwell on the petty personal aspect any further, for my last reply on tis thread should more than suffice.
Let's instead focus on the substantive, namely my as yet unanswered questions and request:
1) Do you understand written Chinese without the aid of a translation service, human or computerized?
2) Have you read this 'preceding compliance report' that you had referred to in your previous post?
3) Could you, for our edification, provide an URL for the current 'compliance report', as well as one for the 'preceding compliance report'?
I trust you are not purposely evading them because you are unable.
Let us move forward in a spirit of trust and comity.
by78
General
And I forgot to clarify one point, which is that I didn't exclusively interpret your statement as saying that you had read the 'compliance report', but rather, I also expressed my belief that you had mistaken as an official document from AVIC's aero-engine subsidiaries, when it's merely a research note from a brokerage firm. This is why I subsequently asked you to provide a link to the previous official 'compliance report'; but I was disappointed when you instead provided a link to yet another research note by yet another brokerage firm.
Which reminds me, could you finally please provide us with a link to the official 'preceding compliance report'?
And there is one last small matter...
Sorry to be a pedant, but you actually didn't say if "you looked at it". Instead, what you actually said was the following:
In other words, you had originally used 'we', which begs the question: were you fibbing or did you make an honest mistake?
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Again you have no clue how a finance company work.Even assuming that your post is true. The analyst who wrote this research definitely has to talk to the company in question first That is their job issuing recommendation without due diligence is FRAUD or even criminal. So your assumption is wrong
It is common practice everywhere They get access to the highest corporate ladder!
It is not like they sit in their office and use their fantasy to write a report!
Wait, so if you didn’t read it then *why* did you feel so sure about your claim, to the point where you’d protract a contentious back and forth trying to defend something that wasn’t actually there?
- Status