There's a difference between lack of clarity and fraud.
Bronte Capital discussed Single's Day, Alibaba / China's equivalent of black Friday. Taking Alibaba's claim of 278m package deliveries at face value, he compares the scale of infrastructure and employees required for Amazon plus Amazon Logistics/UPS/Fedex to deliver significantly fewer packages than Alibaba's claim to Alibaba's infrastructure/employees. The conclusion appears to be that what Alibaba is claiming is largely impossible and the numbers are very wonky.
The question posed in the article is how much is being stolen from investors via pouring money into 'other' businesses that Alibaba created externally and excludes from reports, citing their delivery operations as an example.
"Stolen" might be a bit strong. They aren't being as open and they could and should, but investing is gambling, there are risks. The information that they weren't clearly showing all expenses is obviously there to be found, Chanos found it. People might feel cheated, but unless laws were broken, this is just a part of the market, and people need to keep that in mind when investing (or lobby for changes in the law).
It's possible every penny is well accounted for, but the person being interviewed doesn't seem to share that sentiment even pointing out that the original "Ali Baba" was a thief. The other investor quoted said Alibaba's paperwork looks "faked". They may have their own agendas, but Alibaba seems to be deliberately avoiding any legitimate transparency.
Another way to state or interpret what I said in my prior comment is "Unless they actually have broken some laws, all they are doing is playing the game better than most the investors." If they are breaking the law, then they've defrauded investors. If they haven't, even if they've lied, all they've done is just found a new loophole, and investors should have been aware that what they were reading could have been a lie. it's not fair, but that's never been true about the market.
The suspicion around this company's accounting practices seems to predate this article. We may find out the truth, and it might be nothing, if the SEC investigates. But that may be hampered by the Chinese government prohibiting audits by the US.
“What I like to remind people is that Alibaba was a thief,”
Chanos says this in the last line of the article. I don't know if it's true, but we also know that Chanos isn't an unbiased reporter. He's shorting the company, so tearing them down is in his best interest.
how much is being stolen from investors via pouring money into 'other' businesses that Alibaba created
Another blatant example of this is what happened when Jack Ma, Chairman of Alibaba, moved control of Alipay away from Alibaba.
I don't know all the details or the eventual outcome, but appears that people are deliberately trying to obscure what happened. I simply avoid investing in those sorts of companies.
