AVZ (ASX) CATL’s IPO and reference to Manono

Originally posted by Mactrix ↑

Like i said in the email. If you are happy to wait. I am happy to provide the connections.
But compromising a position i have to win an internet argument, i am not.
You are on the right path but are missing the connections in a pretty overzealous way.
Monano is just the tip of the iceberg.
To see more limiting yourself to one exchange wont get you there and that's where the investment in time is.
Learning to read Chinese and French will help because a lot of documents are so poor in quality that you cant use a translator especially Chinese.
Regarding unsubstantiated claims?
This thread was created on the back of a Town name in an IPO and the snowball ran not only fast but "China" fast.
On one thread everyone is blaming China for the sp drop and its being manipulated and in another people are singing praise for them being the messiah.
There are so many false fires picking just one to dispute or even debate is nauseating.
Until you are on the outside for a second most cant see this.
I was on the outside at the right time so have had a lot of time to look into things.
I may be wrong sometimes and that's the nature of the beast.
But i don't subscribe to speculation that cant be substantiated. I do my own research like you are now.
Can you say that until this debate that you have learned more now than in your entire period of holding? Maybe, maybe not. But at the very least you know much more now than what you did a week ago and that is what contrarian conversations bring to the table.
The whole thread has become much to broad of a discussion from the main topic.
But to just tie this one up. CATL must be talking about AVZ.
And soon the whole world will tremble at the feet of this Colossus.
It just may not be how most people see it playing out.
Its all about subsidiaries.

Expand

Mate, if you don't want to compromise a 'position' please don't make unsubstantiated claims in the first place. Inevitably those claims will be challenged and thus it's incumbent on the claimant to provide evidence rather than cite a convenient 'position'/translation barriers/shadowy subsidiaries. Until such time your 'argument' is diminished.