At least 95% of the information (on a developer) presented to me is favorable, too favorable, unbalanced. The people preparing the information are paid to put the best foot forward. Why would they bother to raise a concern unless it is obvious like short history?

As investor, I have to seek the negative signs and question marks. I can’t “keep an open mind and be fair to the developer.”

I have to practice selective listening.

I can’t 一碗水端平. I must tilt it towards caution.

— Eg: Alan of Propnex said Propnex need to perform their due diligence on MIH because Pronex can’t afford to damage their reputation.

I basically told Alan that if things go bad, I suffer a lot more than Propnex does. This is not completely fair — perhaps Propnex suffers in unknown ways, but still they are only selling the product and they don’t pay for it.