Management claim: Customers sharing office premises is not a relevant factor.Our response: Is this Tianhe’s actual response!? This is ridiculous. Not only does Management seenothing wrong with the fact that Xidatong and Shanghai Top shared an office together (page 47) northat Xidatong and Taifu currently share an office together (page 52), but it also seems that Managementis actively defending this as normal behavior. The evidence clearly shows that these customers arerelated and acting in concert under the direction and influence of a single set of control persons.   - 老实说，这一点还是比较实在的，不过可能没有考虑石油化工这类大工业行业的特性 - 店大欺客。曾经去深圳看“巨涛”，为海油海上钻井台做焊接的，公司总部就在海油同一栋大厦，公司大股东也是海油出身。不是这样，如何来的生意？随便一个人就能去敲海油的门要求为其提供服务吗？

“Tianhe claims that CITIC International purchased RMB1.5 billion from Tianhe in 2013. Of this amount,RMB1.2 billion was SFC products.“
 Tianhe also claims in its draft prospectus that CITIC International
“further re-sells a large portion of our products to their clients overseas.”However, we reviewed publically available PRC government export data which shows that thisstatement cannot possibly be true.”   - 事实上，卖给了”clients overseas" 不代表产品需要从中国出口，这些"Clients overseas"在中国也许有客户或厂，直接就在中国消耗了。  - 需要想象力哦。

”As per our report, an announcement made on the website of CITIC Bank notes that CITIC International only generated revenue of RMB1.31 billionand net profit of RMB29 million in 2009 (page 54)“？？？？2009？这有什么必然关系？既然是贸易公司，为什么不可以在一两年内壮大呢？也许是管理层换人，也许贸易产品换了。谁知道？但好像无法证伪”2011-2013“年CITIC International还没这样的能力”。。。。

”HK regulators should demand that they get the authorization to check taxes directly from provincial tax bureaus.“ ？？？？ 是否想过SFC把有关的职责上交给中央政府比较实际呢？这越扯越大了，准备把中国的司法权私相授受吗？

如果SFC能分辨其中的真假，很多公司就都上不了市了。现在问题就一个，天合能否提供真实的自己版本的账目了。能复牌，就表示没事了，如为假，那就是不能复牌，那还借什么货沽空呢？谁在借货呢？