转载：EDU 惊人问题，刚发现的. 想浑水摸鱼就得快 (转载)# Stock
l*m
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Chinook 俱乐部 】
发信人: lovefreedom (happy), 信区: Chinook
标 题: 转载：EDU 惊人问题，刚发现的. 想浑水摸鱼就得快
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Oct 4 19:33:27 2012, 美东)
EDU New Question for New Oriental
On July 19 they wrote:"New Oriental stands firmly by its statement that all
of the 664 schools and learning centers as of May 31, 2012 were, and are,
its own ". While on October 1, 2012 they stated: "the Company does have
ownership interests in its 55 schools and associated learning centers."
664-55= 609. So what about the rest 609 schools and centers???
See details as follows:
New Oriental Responds to the Muddy Waters Report on July 19, 2012:
“New Oriental had 664 Company owned and operated schools and learning
centers as of May 31, 2012. The Muddy Waters report alleged that a
significant number of these schools and learning centers were instead
operated by franchisees, and that the Company consolidates these franchisees
' results of operations and assets as though they were the Company's own.
The Muddy Waters report is wrong. New Oriental stands firmly by its
statement that all of the 664 schools and learning centers as of May 31,
2012 were, and are, its own.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oriental-responds-muddy-waters-re
New Oriental Education Completes Review Of Recent Allegations; Says Finds No
‘Significant Evidence’ To Support Charges October 1, 2012
The company says: “The Special Committee’s work on the “franchise” issue
uncovered no significant evidence that supports the Muddy Waters allegation
mentioned above. The evidence collected indicates that the Company does
have ownership interests in its 55 schools and associated learning centers.
The activity related to the 21 third parties with whom New Oriental has
entered into brand “cooperation agreements” is entirely separate, is
immaterial, and in any event is properly accounted for in the Company’s
financial statements. The Special Committee’s work on the tax issue
uncovered no significant evidence that supports the Muddy Waters allegation
mentioned above.”
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2012/10/01/new-or
发信人: lovefreedom (happy), 信区: Chinook
标 题: 转载：EDU 惊人问题，刚发现的. 想浑水摸鱼就得快
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Oct 4 19:33:27 2012, 美东)
EDU New Question for New Oriental
On July 19 they wrote:"New Oriental stands firmly by its statement that all
of the 664 schools and learning centers as of May 31, 2012 were, and are,
its own ". While on October 1, 2012 they stated: "the Company does have
ownership interests in its 55 schools and associated learning centers."
664-55= 609. So what about the rest 609 schools and centers???
See details as follows:
New Oriental Responds to the Muddy Waters Report on July 19, 2012:
“New Oriental had 664 Company owned and operated schools and learning
centers as of May 31, 2012. The Muddy Waters report alleged that a
significant number of these schools and learning centers were instead
operated by franchisees, and that the Company consolidates these franchisees
' results of operations and assets as though they were the Company's own.
The Muddy Waters report is wrong. New Oriental stands firmly by its
statement that all of the 664 schools and learning centers as of May 31,
2012 were, and are, its own.”
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/oriental-responds-muddy-waters-re
New Oriental Education Completes Review Of Recent Allegations; Says Finds No
‘Significant Evidence’ To Support Charges October 1, 2012
The company says: “The Special Committee’s work on the “franchise” issue
uncovered no significant evidence that supports the Muddy Waters allegation
mentioned above. The evidence collected indicates that the Company does
have ownership interests in its 55 schools and associated learning centers.
The activity related to the 21 third parties with whom New Oriental has
entered into brand “cooperation agreements” is entirely separate, is
immaterial, and in any event is properly accounted for in the Company’s
financial statements. The Special Committee’s work on the tax issue
uncovered no significant evidence that supports the Muddy Waters allegation
mentioned above.”
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2012/10/01/new-or
