The Glaucus report that exposed that QIN's major customer to whom they claimed to have pre-sold HALF of their entire production couldn't possibly fulfil the contract?
The one that showed that the yields claimed in the accounts are fictional and don't agree with the yields from the MIS accounts?
The one that showed that the pricing forecasts upon which the whole house of cards they laughingly call 'biological assets' on the balance sheet are based on an 'independent' report from a related party?
Actually I'm not relying on that, I did plenty of my own research as well.
For instance, if Abu Dhabi invested in the 2010 vintage, they were sold a project with a forecast yield of 27.5kg per tree in year 14, with an 83% survival rate, yielding
1925kg of heartwood.
View attachment 551484
What have they got?
They got a project that as at end of June 2016, had a survival rate of 76.6% that had lost 16% of its trees in the last 4 years. Those surviving trees had a forecast yield of 14.8kg per tree.
So even if every single tree survived till harvest, and despite all evidence to the contrary they managed to yield that much heartwood, they would yield
~950kg of heartwood - less than half what they were promised at the beginning, and with 9 years of tree losses to come.
Why on earth would they buy a 'business' that can't even deliver half what they promise?
