This reads less like a rebuttal and more like a confirmation of...

This reads less like a rebuttal and more like a confirmation of the key allegations!

Glaucus allegation:

QIN said they presold 750t of wood worth about US$25m/yr to a Chinese buyer, and that they would deliver wood monthly. Glaucus identified this buyer and worked out they didn't have the financial capacity to buy that much, and further that on a phone call they 'didn't do that business any more'.

QIN statement:

Glaucus have correctly identified the claimed buyer and QIN haven't shipped any more material to them since the initial announcement. They hope to sell the wood to others (or maybe themselves?), but they haven't got any agreements to sell more than about $2.5m of album sandalwood oil to anyone else, whilst the Nestle deal has no minimum volume at all.

verdict: Glaucus allegation confirmed

__________

Glaucus allegation:


By buying up early vintages of their MIS investors, QIN prevents market price discovery and artificially inflates the price of the sandalwood. They do this by raising cash in the market to pay out previous investors, much like a ponzi scheme. Glaucus speculate that this is because QIN believe if the sandalwood hit the open market in large volume, prices would collapse.

QIN statement:

no response

verdict: Glaucus allegation looks fair.
__________

Also:

• the survival/yield numbers that Glaucus quoted were from the company website, QIN have tied themselves in knots by trying to selectively quote from different vintages - their own numbers show they are aiming for 15.7kg per tree an in the majority of cases they aren't on target to hit even that.
• 
• QIN haven't addressed if the McKinsey report supports the pricing forecasts that were made by the related party;
• the "cash" EBITDA that QIN quote is based is inflated because they buy their own product, so the "cash" EBITDA is matched by large cash outflows to buy the trees at inflated prices:
• 

______________

The problem for QIN is that it only takes one of Glaucus's major allegations to be true, and they've either been shown to be deceptive; they are going bust; or both.

The fact that QIN have failed to take down any important allegations made by Glaucus should be seen as very worrying.