Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Legend had over 70% growth, IBM 22%
CBQI has distributorship with Legend
Shanhai is also a member of SOBUS.
SOBUS has partnership with Ultrachina in Newhampshire.
Shanhai SVA Computer co. Ltd - in an artical that you posted on IHUB - has already imported computers. Have they not?
Bix
Gary, Aside from the debate over the accuracy of the math, it concerns Legends market growth of PC sales in mainland china compared to IBM's.
Da!, Here is the chart from the U.S. Department of State titled 09/30/2000 Computer Internet Service in China
Top Vendors in China's PC Market
VENDOR SHIPMENTS SHARE%99 SHIPMENTS SHARE%98 GROWTH
Legend 382,843 17.2% 219,601 11.8% 74.3%
IBM 149,504 6.7% 122,263 6.6% 22.3%
HP 128,330 5.8% 104,657 5.6% 22.6%
Founder 114,487 5.1% 66,054 3.6% 73.3%
Compaq 67,067 3.0% 106,583 5.7% -37.1%
Others 1,382,467 62.1% 1,240,582 66.7% 11.4%
All 2,224,698 100.0% 1,859,740 100.0% 19.6%
My point was not to debate the accuracy of math used to generate the above report but to point out that U.S.Companies are currently competing successfully in distribution and sales of PCs in spite of Tarriffs that are imposed by China's government on Foreign imports of PCs.
CBQI is not the "first mover" some may believe. If IBM can compete in the Chinese Mainland, it can compete with a price war in the U.S.
Interesting link Da! -
The article from USA today indicats Legend's success in China is in due in part to Tarrifs that China imposes on imports of PCs. Legend will not benefit from those Tarrifs when attempting to sell in the U.S. Market.
China recently cracked down on smuggling of goods between Hong Kong and China, hurting foreign-made PC sales because many of them were smuggled by distributors in Hong Kong into China to avoid tariffs, analysts say.
Do you think that the U.S. will apply Tarrifs?
Wrong Da! Do you even read your posts?
IN Post # 2801 you wrote:
"Yes, Bix, but you're missing the point. IBM used to be the dominant PC provider in China...as recently as 1996. They are losing market share."
Yet in post #2802 You say:
"The table clearly shows that IBM's market share increased only from 6.6% in 1998 to 6.7% in 1999. Of course, that is still growth. I can't argue that. But it is nowhere close to 22.3% growth in market share. "
Now lets apply high school math and ask what percent of 6.6 = 1.5? It truely is 22.3% growth Da!. Do it another way, and take the total number of machines sold by IBM in China during 1998 (122,263) and multiply that by 22.3% = 27,264 unit increase. Then add 27,264 to 122,263 and whala! It equals the number of units sold in 1999 Da! (149,504); give or take a dozen or two.
Now if IBM increased the total number of computers sold in China's Mainland PC market by 22.3% then IBM increased its market share by 22.3%. Perhaps you were confused by the idea that IBM's increase is smaller than Legends; I dont know.
I am willing to accept your apology Da!.
Instructions to open link
Try First:
http://exportit.ita.doc.gov/ocbe/ForeignM.nsf!OpenDatabase&Start=1&Count=30&Expand=3.3
Then select report dated 9/30/2000 to see where IBM market share increased 22%.
Or:
Goto: http://exportit.ita.doc.gov/ocbe/ForeignM.nsf/
Then select: Aisa/Pacific
Then select : China
Then select : Report dated 9/30/2000
PC sales chart is about 25% down the document.
Actually Da!, Your incorrect:
According to the Office of Information Technologies website and report by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, IBM increased its market share by 22.3%
However, assuming your speculation proved accurated, I would venture out to say that you are the one who is missing the point Da!.
The point is: IF IBM can compete in the PC industry in Mainland China where unit prices are significanly lower, then don't you think they will blow down any attempt to sell below their current prices with PRICE WAR?
IBM is not the only computer manufacturer on that list of companys selling PCs in China Da!. HP also experienced success by cornering 5.6% of the Chinese Market.
Again: If these companies can compete with the Chinese manufactures, then don't you think they can survive any deal CBQI brokers out to the same Chinese manufacures that IBM already competes with?
http://exportit.ita.doc.gov/ocbe/ForeignM.nsf/679c088699b484498525674e0000eb9f/d7f98bac65cf830d85256....
Yes the U.S. based operation in New Hampsure is small compared to the operation in the Mainland, or even CBQI.
I do not know the extent of the partnership agreement (if any) between SOBUS and UltraChina. Shanghai SVA Computer Co. Ltd is a member of SOBUS. While Legend owned the largest share of the Chinese market in 1999, IBM was right behind them with almost 7% of the market share. Who was exporting the United States? You guessed it: Shanghai. Ironically, Legend is also a member of SOBUS, along with IBM,APPLE, MOTOROLA, etc..
Ultrachina alone is no contender. If the information on the website is accurate, SOBUS is the muscle behind Ultrachina.
SOBUS is one of UltraChina's off-shore programming and software development partners in China.
Source: http://www.ultrachina.com/english/main.cfm?MID=122&CID=0
I'm working on the link Da. Cybernation is a Mom & Pop operation in Broward County FL. They mail out fliers to local residents but I don't see a web link to the company.
RE: U.S. BASED DISTRIBUTION ARM : Ultra China featurs SOBUS on their website(previous link)and has offices in N.E. United States.
http://www.ultrachina.com/english/main.cfm?CID=0&MID=92
UltraChina Business Services
UltraChina is a well-known China Business Consulting group based in New Haven area of Connecticut. It was formed to provide one-stop business services to American companies,.... Our services include: strategic planning, business development, joint-venture development, technology transfer, Chinese-English web design & hosting.
UltraChina is also a leading edge Internet technology company. Its board members are internationally respected leaders in finance, corporate management, technology transfer and internet development. The management team of UltraChina is composed of senior executives and professionals who are well versed in the business practices of both the USA and China with entrepreneurial visionary. The executives have been in the senior management and technical positions in American companies such as AT&T, IBM and Compaq. They have worked with a few technical companies and departments of a number of Chinese ministries providing American companies impartial, efficient and cost effective business consulting and services. UltraChina is closely connected with E TechnologyCorp.com, Connecticut China Council, Yale University and University of New Haven. The advantages of our services include.....
Dell: Direct Sales Model Proves Successful In China
Dell's China operations have seen quarterly growth of 40%-50% since Dell went direct in the Chinese market in 1998. The company's second quarter report of 2000 again demonstrates the success of Dell's direct sales model in China, where its sales revenues and profits have risen by 86% and 60.4% respectively over the last year.
SOURCE: http://www.ultrachina.com/english/industry.cfm?CID=50
All Too True Gary. Look at what the competition does:
http://www.ultrachina.com/english/main.cfm?MID=122&CID=0
Resource of SOBUS:
The number of member enterprises : 40
The total number of software developers: 4500
Among them:
project manager: 300
system analyst: 400
advanced programmer: 700
intermediate programmer: 1300
general programmer: 1800
Gary's Post references a link to the OEM order he uses to base his numbers on and suggests "70% margin of play" in cost vs retail.
The company who filled the OEM order, Shanghai SVA Computer Co. LTD, is a Wholey Owned Foreign Enterprise founded by GE Subsidiary: Shanghai General Electronics Group Co. Ltd,
Shanghai SVA computer co. is a client of China Pinnacle Strategies Co Ltd. Pinnacle is a professional management consulting firm founded in 1994. Pennacle's Client list includes, IBM, APPLE, MOTOROLA, LUCENT, MICROSOFT, DELL, CISCO, HP, ERRICSON, SONY and a few others with operations in Mainland China.
You may find it surprising that Legend actually controls largest market share(17%) of the Chinese PC Market than Shanghai. Second is IBM with 6.7%.
How can CBQI overcome IBM? Clearly, CBQI's alleged "first mover" advantage is compromised. Both IBM and GE sell computers made in China. Difference is: They both own the manufacturing plants. I suspect Gary's so-called "70% margin of play" is grossly overexagerated. Price War on horrizon.
Source: ITA.DOC.GOV http://exportit.ita.doc.gov/ocbe/ForeignM.nsf/679c088699b484498525674e0000eb9f/d7f98bac65cf830d85256....
Thank You Warden,
I've learned my lesson.
When Can I leave?
Hey Stugs
You harrassin lil girls on IHUB?
Bix
Can I make bail?
Do I get a phone call?
Attorney?
I can appreciate your point of view Matt. I just hope you didnt base you decisions only those points reoported as TOS violations. I have not reported Gary or Frank for spreading the rumors and lies. Doing so now would be too little too late as far as Im concerned. Can you do that in Jail?
Bix
For your anti spam mission Matt
S.P.A.M.
Stop
Posting
Aggravating
Messages
Then who was deleting my posts? You?
I dont know what you do and dont understand, but I suspect that if someone lied about you, you would want to defend yourself.
Its bad enough to watch Gary spread these rumors into his posts. I am even more disappointed that he and Frank(the parties who spread the rumors) have the authority to delete my posts.
Your outline of my posts only shows the first two or three words. Why not start with the first post @7:13 and read it.
I grant you; repetitious nuisance posts were not necessary. What was wrong with my initial post? And If if my post containes off topic material, what about the COB's? Does he not set the standard?
I'm Innocent I tell you, I'm Innocent!
You dont get it Matt?
One of your administrators fabricates a lie about me and then delets me for defending myself. I think if you were put into that situation, you would find yourself feeling the same way Matt.
Perhaps I was wrong. Try to see the true picture here. People deserve fair treatment. What sanctions have you imposed on Gary?
Bix
Manipulation?
I think it has more to do with perceived value. Stocks with high value do trade for two dimes.
BIx
Any comments the 11 penny drop?
WAIT~! DONT LEAVE !
LOL
Here Matt,
Just follow the links.
Bix
Asking the question: What is a broker support aggreement? is not asking for stock Gary.
Is that where you got your ideas from?
Gary, You are the one who made accusations about me trying to buy stock through some under handed scheme. Do you now deny doing so?
Bix
Sure Matt,
Which post was vulgar? From the looks of your quoates, I see nothing remotely close. Surely, your not referring to the term "Fluff." Perhaps my idea of vulgar is differant than your own
I'm using the term Fluff to describe the overall oppinions of a "core" group of posters toward company announcements containing no detailed plan of how the company intends to accomplish its goals.
For Example: Over a year ago, CBQI released news about its intent to become listed on the NAZ. Everyone knows that moving from the OTC to the NAZ would require stock price that stablizes over a certain dollar value. That type of announcement can easily be construed to mean the company expects its stock stablize at or above the required level. Needless to say it never occured. I'm using the term "FLUFF" to indicate these press releases suggest that the company's expectations are "FLUFFED UP" over a realistic level based on when compared to historical results. I'm using the term "FLUFF INVESTORS" to discribe those who make any reference to these typs of announcements which contain little or no details on how, when, and where the company will achieve its announced goals.
Second, regarding rumnors: Gary and Frank have suggested on nurmous occasions that I met with SID and GARY for the purpose of buying stock in CBQI. This is 100% Lie which I find personally offensive. Rather than ask me to defend myself in a guilty till proven innocent forum, I would like to request that you require Gary and Frank to "support" these fallacious accuasations. I will not go back and quoate exact post numbers. As Frank has said, these accusations are in the archives.
Third, I would apprecited it if you would send copies of my deleted posts so I can have the opportunity to evaluate what it is that they are being deleted for and modify them if necessary so they may be restored to the thread.
Well Gary, every time your wrong, you start using that whole in your head to avoid me.
If CBQI can not generate earnings for its investors, its a capital loss and nothing more. Delusions about things that have not even happened will not change reality.
I still believe the entry point is under .12. You've been talking this stock up for a year. All during that time, it dropped like a rock. Anyone can loose money. I'm not loosing mine by trusting one or two people who have a history of overexaggerating the value of this stock.
Bix
Well you have your opinions Gary.
I will not take issue with you for being more optimistic than I. Comparing CBQI to OTCs that have zero track records does not make CBQI look any better.
CBQI is not a horrible company, but it is not the company you and others like to "believe" it is either.
CBQI can not advance into the area that fluff PR describes without a plan that is up and working today. Some talk about "orders." Great. Where are the distribution trucks? Where are the warehouses? Where are the QA inspectors?
All of these details are vital elements of a distributorship agreement that must realized and accomplished. CBQI can not generate positive earnings with its existing businesses. How can it make money in a business it is not even prepared to compete in? The computer industry is a perfectly competitive industry. Look at the big gun companies who have far more power and resources than CBQI. You will find that they rely on computer sales as their sole life-blood.
Do you honestly think companies like IBM or APPLE will roll over and watch CBQI steal its life-blood? Regardless of what you or I think, I'm willing to bet that IBM and APPLE have already been advised of CBQI's aspirations. In fact, I would not be surprised if they have already made a call to our so called "loyal" computer suppliers.
Anyone can enter a market with dreams. Ultimately, this comes down to one thing. EARNINGS. Can CBQI compete and generate positive EARNINGS? Time is critical.
Clearly Gary, EBITA is extremely important. I do not necessarily agree that VCs look at EBITA in a vacume. IMO VC money targets companies that have consistant business Plans, the People to make them happen, a Place to Promote and market successfully, and a Product that people will buy at a competitive Price(John Offerdahl on the six Ps of success).
WHAT IS CBQI's PRODUCT? WHO IS BUYING IT TODAY?
The vision must come together with the business plan. CBQI's leadership is a visionary. Yes all these ideas are important. They are not enough to bring success. The success of a company must rely on the execution of its plans. Right now we seeing a company that is changing its plans every year. We go from outsorcing software to outsourcing computers. Is their a market for it? H E L L Y E S !!!
That does not mean CBQI will be able to take advantage of its "first mover" advantage. Alexander Bell was not the first to invent the telephone, just the first to successfully market it. Do not expect this new plan to be esily executable. CBQI has no distribution experiance.
It would very encouraging to see CBQI contract with distribitors in the United States and sign agreements with them. That would go a long way to convince skeptical investors like myself that Bart is not blowing smoke. I doubt my advise is taken to heart. But I'd be impressed to see plans invloving more continuity.
Over all, I do agree VC money will look at EBITA. I do not agree that means CBQI will get any. The current market works against us when it comes to VC money. Companies are getting cheaper to own. Some of them have better products with more positive performance reports. Their are tons of companies bleeding at the moment. Its a VC market dream. Regardless, it is pointless to speculate on VC money unless it is actually committed to CBQI Today. I do not plan on investing in any company simply because it has good potential to get VC money.
Their is your answer. Now answer mine: "When do you think this company will awake from its coma?
No Gary, I completely agree.
That does not change the fact that the results I am looking for are positive earnings. Stop talking grapes while I talk apples.
CBQI is clearly exerting effort to generate positive earnings. It still hasn't delivered them. IMO, until that happens, this stock will not see the volume it is capable of generating.
We will see what happens next quarter. I'm not gonna risk money on the word of a few individuals that CBQI will actually turn green.
Now your turn to answer my question: When will CBQI awake from this coma?
Good Luck
I am not about to decipher some "coded" performance report contining multiple statements that indicate earnings results remain negative.
I just dont have any more patience when it comes to that. Residuum made a summary analysis on RB wich for the most part appears to be non-biased.
SPin? Dismiss with the trash talk Gary. Debate me on the points or can it. I have repeatedly said your investment style is different than my own. You make money on CBQI? I made money when I was trading it between .50 and 1.5 range from June to December of 2000.
How many of you can honestly say you earned anything on this stock(Not trying to suggest you didn't)? I think I am taking the best possible stance at this point in time. IMO, we are looking a critical point. Bart said he forcasted seeing positive earnings in the second quarter of this year. I don't have to remind you he cautioned us that CBQI would positive in 3rd if 2nd didn't happen. Credibility is on the line. The money I have to thow at CBQI will be obvious if and when performance reports show positive earnings.
Keep up the FUD attacks and I'll put you on my idiot list again. Debate me like a Gentleman or zip that hole in your head. Misinformation is a serious offence that I detest. To a limited degree you are misinforming others by suggesting that I am wrong by pointing to the Negative Earnings and continued Decline in Sales.
Good Luck to Us All
Bix
Gary, You and other are certainly free to buy on the "belief" that RESULTS will get better. I will stick to my plan and wait until they "actually" do.
Like I said in my initial post. IMO, there is nothing here now that will not exist in the future. Assuming you are correct, and things do go positive, I expect to see entry point before that occurs.
Bix
This is black and white Gary. RESULTS are the key.
To put it another way, Negative Earnings = Negative Results - Naturally, however, if CBQI decreases its revenues to those generated by your average Hotdog Vendor , I could care less if earnings are positive. With 70 Million shares, the company has to generate a minimum of $ 700,000 in earings before investors make a lousey penny per share.
Understand that others have oppinions on ivestment style wich defer from your own. You are a highly speculative investor to suggest that this company is "moving forward" in the current economic evironment. While I respect your oppinions, I do not share your optimism towards CBQI.
The Fact is: CBQI remains non-profitable while losing a significant percentage of its market share. As sincere as you may be, it is irresponsible for anyone to adopt a differant investment style solely for one investment. I am not big fan of long term invesment in penny stocks. There are good reasons why this stock can be bought for less than a quarter. If you like to hold for the long term, blue chips and some small caps are excellent plays. CBQI is a pure speculation play.
Impulsive buying on speculation is a dangerous and highly risky strategy. IMHO, its not even investing. Its more like gambling. Your "guessing" that things will happen the way someone else "thinks" they will. That's just not my style.
Rather than argue: lets go on the record for what we see as a reliable forcast. I see the sunny skies facilitating today's volume as the eye of a Hurricane. It looks nice and pretty from one person's point of view. Be careful. We are only half way through this storm. Do you agree?
If not: Can we say that you think CBQI will be waking out of its coma in the next 30 days?
Well Gary, I completely agree with the idea of "getting in before it wakes up." To put things into my perspective using your own analogy: I prefer to get in after it wakes up but before it gets out of the shower. If you study the "short term" sleeping paterns of CBQI, it is very easy to see why it trades the way it does. Most of the time the press wakes it up. After the initial excitement wears off and investors realize only a limited few are jumping on board, it takes another nap.
Now if you study the "long-term" sleeping patterns of CBQI, you clearly see the stock remains in a coma (with the $ 5 per share being a long term average). RESULTS will remedy the coma Gary. IMO, Nothing else will.
Bix