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.
GARY,
YUP, I AM SPECULATING. BUT IT IS BASED ON THE MM TRANSFER LOGS. They dont tell you who is buying what only dates,times, and quantity of transactions.
Do the MM reports to NASD contain additional information? Or are you looking at the same information? Without knowing the parties to each transaction, it is difficult to prove MMs are holding a naked short position.
Regradless, it doesn't matter either way. CBQI's stock is down, at least in part, due to the low volume. Yesterday marks CBQI's lowest volume in any 4 consective trading sessions going back to November 1999.
IMHO, without being positive about the direction revenues are heading, we will be seeing this activity till the next q.
Bix
Thank You Gary
Oversells taking place today are offset by overbuying in the 7-15 dollar range.
The trading logs datting bact to this time period 1999 to 2000 reflect modest profit taking.
In your example you indicate that you bought a stock in the 7-15 dollar range. In my example, I was showing the profit taking as Overbuys(Selling). The issue your getting at has nothing to do with Overselling. You are trying to say that the MMs are so oversold that they have depleted their inventories. This is not an Oversell. This a naked short position and this is considered illegal unless you have the contracts for options to back up the oversell in the event it is called. So far Gary, You are the only one I know who owns options on CBQI.
There is ONE fundamental problem in being too quick to accuse MMs of taking naked short positions in CBQI. In addition to facilitatng trades to individual investors, market makers are also able to purchase stock on the open market to cover these short positions. This happens when MMs buy and sell stock from each other. The trading logs reflect the buy but it does not show that the buy covers a naked short. Regardless of the logs you are keeeping, it is impossible to determine who was buying the stock.
For Example
CBQI puts 20 shares of common stock on the open Market.
MM # 1 and MM # 2contacts transfer agent and accumulates inventory of 5 shares apeice to fill orders.
Gary Swancy buys 10 shares of stock(TAPE REFLECTS 10 BUYS)
MM # 2 sells 10 shares to Gary Swancey and sustaines a 5 share Naked short position (SOLD 10 Shares).
MM # 2 buys 5 shares from MM # 1(TAPE REFLECTS 5 BUYS)
MM # 1 sells 5 shares to MM # 2(SOLD 5 Shares)
In this example, the tape reflects a total of 15 buys when in fact their were only 10 shares sold. Sure its logical to say their is a 5 share oversell. But it is inaccurate.
Bix
NO
You do not need volume. You are not thinking about the other side of each transaction.
1 sell is two transactions. For example:
1) MM Buys Stock stock for 15 Dollars
2) Gary Sancy Sells for 15 dollars.
You now have 15 dollars and MM has 1 share.
That stock is held by MM until it is Bought by someone else.
Bix
OVERSELL=OVERBUY
Your Comment: "I have seen what look to me like a over sell on almost everday."
Their are two sides to each trade. Shareholders/investors like you and I determine whether a stock is "oversold."
MMs sell from their own inventories so they do not buy stock the same day they sell it. They buy when someone wants to sell and sell when someone wants to buy.
Why call it "Oversell?" When MMs buy more than they can sell, no-one yells about CBQ being "over bought." When you complain an MM is Overselling, you neglect to point out that demand for the stock was greator than supply. That is not the case here. Their are 70 Million Shares and "no one" bought 1 share yet today!
Food for thought: CBQI is not "Oversold." It is "Overbought." Market wise shareholders took profits in the 7-15 dollar range and MMs bought more than they sold. I reviewed the posts back in 2000 and Not one person complained about MM Overbuys on the run up to 15. Thats when the price got so high that no one wanted to buy it anymore. MM's held huge inventories. Now, they are getting rid of it. No conspiracy.
GARY, If I am wrong andy you supposedly right, then why is it 11:00 AM and NOT ONE TRADE?
WHAT IS UP WITH THIS STOCK?!?
I know I am not the most optimistic when it comes to CBQI but I did not think it was this bad.
If CBQI experiances continued decline in revenues during the second quarter, I bet you can buy this stock for a dime.
Bix
Bix NEVER asked you for STOCK!
SirVinny
I completely agree. They are sacrificing the quality of the site for quantity. That will catch up to them in the end.
Bix
JJ: Gary is also quite talented at creating his own spin. Gary lied about me wanting shares to promote CBQI.
I am unable to determine if Gary is lieing to be vindictive, or if he honestly believes his SPIN. He is a bit narcisistic so it would not surprise me if he actually falls for his own fibs.
He is doing it so frequently that I am starting to wonder if this is his way of bribing me to agree with him.
The point is "not" that Gary can't be trusted because he fabricates but rather that he is not an impartial source of information. He gets paid to be IR. In that regard, I view him as a car salesman. He has a job to do and the job does not require that he provide information critical to determine the fair market value of CBQI.
YOU LOVE DEBATE
So do I. I have no problem if CBQI looks good as long it has the fundamentals to back up its appearance.
To date we have only agreed that we do not agree with each other on multiple fronts.
The largest disagreement: You blame MMs for CBQI's fall and I do not believe they are responsible. The MMs took a beating in the 7 to 15 dollar range. They bought over a hundred thousand shares in that range and got burned. They could not sell their inventories without lowering the bid. IMHO, this is why CBQI sits at 23 cents with a 25% spread. MMs were the only ones buying when market wise shareholders took profits. Longs don't even buy this stock.
I read comments from people like Saturnone over on RB and share several of their oppinions(#17497). In spite of having alot going for itself, CBQI remains in a doggish slump. The problem is best pointed out by people like JB (#17522) who worry about taking 25% loss out of the gate as a result of the spread. If CBQI longs wont buy, why would a new investor take a substantial position?
Combine that with the investors who bought on the dicline, a handfull of Press Releases that contain unaccomplished dreams, and an IR who refuses to discuss CBQI's weakest link; and you have this melting pot of discontent. Performance is the only thing that will get CBQI going.
Bix
SirVinny,
Admin wants the site to be popular so it can generate income by advertising.
I think one problem is the fear of chasing off the people who are opening the discussions. If they chase off the IR's, who will generate the interest.
It appears ADMIN cares more about catering to COBs with an ability to attract new interest than it does about quality interest. If allowed to continue, IMHO, this will be IHUB's undoing. People may post here from time to time, but they will not remain loyal if they are not guraunteed equality.
Bix
I second that motion.
He is a gentleman with integrity and fairness we can all learn from.
Bix
How Bob.
Good to see you. Just wanted to see what the living conditions are like in "The Jailhouse."
Gary and I are still at it over on CBQI. I am disappointed in IHUB for allowing someone with a vested financial interest in a security make judgment calls on what constitutes "acceptable" content on the site. Its a conflict of interest and requires a system of checks and balances.
At the moment he is threatening to delte more of my posts because I defend myself from allegations that I am blackmailing the company for shares.
Thank you for your support
Cheers.
Nice Thread (Appropriate)
CBQI Thread has a COB who is lieing about me and when I check him on it, he threatens to delete my posts. What a Joke.
The beauty is the COB is employed by CBQI and selectively deletes posts.
Raging bull sux when it comes to killing posts, but IHUB IMHO,is taking this a step too far.
Such is life.
Bix
Nice Gary,
The old, your lieing and if you say your not, I'll delete you routine. This is the problem with IHUB. I don't know of any stock site that condones the practice of deleting truthful posts to protect lies/attacks on others.
You say U R "Giving me fair warning" as though posting here is a privilage that you alone grant to me. Good Luck
Bix
Whiz,
As best, I can tell, the lies about me blackmailing CBQI orignined from Gary. Here is a link to trace backwards.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=108876
Bix
Gary,
You still haven't answerd me:
What is a Broker Support Agreement?
Bix
Your Welcome
I had no idea what a Broker Support Agreement was.
I know we talked about a good bit but I'm sure you were the one who brought it up(As an answer to my question). That conversation was in the context of buying stock at the bid (15 cents).
Bix
"THUD" NOTHING LIKE A TWO WEEK ARGUMENT.
Lets set some parameters and focus on one discussion at a time. Dont go detracting from the discussion by making personal attacks.
Nevertheless, A two week old argument is fine with me. My apology for the delay. OK, now I remember this post. Didn't I point out that I offered to pay because SID drove down two counties in rush hour traffic? If you wanted to pitch in, you certainly had the opportunity to do so. If my memory servs me correct, I think you said: "I'll pay you back later." or "I'll make it up the next time." IRRELEVANT
Regardless, I do not see that me buying you and your wife dinner should be construed as anything other than my generocity. If you disagree, put your money where your mouth is and send me a check.
You say: "This is personal between you and me since you threaten to come to my door." Where did I say this and what was the context of my comment? Is it possible you misconstrued the message? Is this the same post that I alluded to buying a bottle of Gin so I could get lit and forget about my 95% losses? Nice Spin Gary.
You say I: "wanted stock ... you did not get it"
What conversation are you talking about? I remember speaking to you about making one trade to recoup my entire loss in CBQI(Only recovered 40%). Is that what you are referring to? When did this alleged discussion occur? At Dinner? On the phone? or Is this in your imagination? Where did this discussion occur?
Just so you are clear, my interest in meeting you was two fold. 1) Curiosity 2) To determine CBQI's capabilities in developing UPC scanning software. I figured, if I am going to pay someone to develop software, it might as well be the company I own stock in. You were too busy yappin about all the press that was released earlier that day to focus on my agenda. Pitty.
By the way: What is a Broker Support Agreement?
PARKING LOT IT IS
Did you just post one out there? Or did you respond to mine? I dont' recall getting notification.
I'll check it and we can settle this.
BIX
IS this Gary Swancey?
U R Demented.
What 100K Shares?
You want to give me 100K shares?
If I lie about how wonderful CBQI IS?
No Thanks.
Franklin
I challenged Gary to discuss this with me in the parking lot so it would not have to take place here.
Gary chose to avoid the discussion. I let it drop.
And they you bring it up again.
This web of deceit only shows true colors.
Bix
No Franklin, You have not.
But lieing about it here is worse.
REFUTE:
OK, now this is starting to make sence:
Apparently Gary has violated SEC rules by suggesting that a Broker Support Agreement could be used to accumulate stock off the open market.
It never occured to me that Gary would suggest anything unethical but it must be or Gary would not lie about bringing up the broker support agreement. I suppose the SEC would have a thing or two to say about that. Regardless, I was naive and did not realize it was a violation. I asked him what he ment and he denies knowing about it. Fabricating this story to attack the poster does not add credance to Gary's version of the truth.
About the only thing I agree with Gary on is that there were "five" people at dinner. Ask Sid's daughter and Gary's wife about Gary's posts and I am confidant you will get a more accurate version of the truth. I do not believe everyone who attended would lie for Gary. Regardless, four different people telling the same lie will always contradict themselves on the details.
As to the discussion outside: Their was no mention of anyone giving anyone shares of stock. The talk outside was about India, Networkland, and Technet. Gary is detracting attention from the fact that he proposed a Broker Support Agreement(probably illegal) that I never took him up on.
If any of this were true, why would Gary wait almost two months to say somthing?
He
Da,
Anyone can research my posts and verify that I've been consistantly blasting CBQI for "Failing to Perform" going back prior to my meeting with Gary and Sid.
Bix
Whiz,
These allegations are false. There are only two things I can think of that would cause Frank to beleive such a thing: At one point in the past, I think I posted a comment about Gary getting paid for being IR. I dont remember exactly what I said; but I was pointing out that as a paid IR, and shareholder, he has a vested financial interest in the company that could affect his judgment when analyzing the negative aspects of CBQI. This post was on IH or RB. I think I commented: "I WOULD HYPE CBQI IF YOU GAVE ME HIS SHARES."(sarcasism).
Frank spun this comment into the personal attacks you now see him directing at me. As is the case with most of his posts about me, they are false. There was never a discussion between myself Sid, Gary, or anyone at CBQI, that remotely comes close to Frank's comments.
Other than that, there was a telephone discussion between Gary and I regarding CBQI's spread and the market in general. The discussion took place around the time that CBQI's stock price was around 15 cents per share. We were argueing about reasons for CBQI's declining stock price and high spread, and debating the reasons each. I told Gary I thought it was because the stock was overvalued in 2000 and is currently a low volume stock. Gary said he thought it was caused by market makers. I asked Gary if someone could buy stock in a company without going through a broker(Market Maker). Gary alluded to a broker agreement but did not explain detail.
I have not spoken to Gary(via telephone) since then.
IS NAZ AN ISSUE IN THE NEAR FUTURE?
RE: "I have stated before I do not see it happening in the interview and I still do not see it happening"
Is Bart continueing his orginal plan to be listed on a larger exchange, or has he decided to put it on the "back burner?"
Bix
NICE POST GEEZER,
So Gary,
Which one of the two methods do you think will be used to qualify for a listing on a higher exchange? CBQI's stock is experiancing sell orders lining up at 30 cents and above. Don't see that your post addresses the underlying concern:
HOW IS CBQI GOING TO MAKE THE LISTING CONSIDERING THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE MARKET PRICE OF IT's STOCK? CLEARLY, IT DOES NOT QUALIFY ON EITHER FRONT.
Bix
NO Thats not accurate.
Thats for a different company. Oh yea, thats right, CBQI does not identify revenue details.
Daaaaah
Is that post Accurate?
ENVIRONMENTAL SCANNING 101
Do the subtraction using data from last post
Subtract Total Revs(.5 M) from Gross Revenue Loss(1.5M)
Notice they are not equal? The Gross Revenue Loss is greator than the amount itemized on the Q and therefore is not large enough to be attributed "solely" to "discontinued" operations. The difference is approximately 1 Million shy.
That equates to a 1 million dollar loss in "core" business. Working backwards, Total Core previously = 2.5 Million per Quarter. Total Core Now 1.5 Million. That is a 40% reduction in "core" revenue from January'01 to MArch 31,2001.
Projecting continued 40% reduction in "core" business:
q1 = 1.5 M
q2 = .9 M
q3 = .54 M
q4 = .32 M
2001 excluding Technet & Networkland)
ARRR = 12 Million
Revenue Projection > 4 Million
Note: The above revenue projection is based on continued trends and environmental impactors and assumes current trends continue.
Da
I let the Q speak for itself. I do not agree that it should be interpreted to mean: "100% of the reduction in revs was attibuted "solely" to the discontinuation of non-core business.
IMHO, the Q does not speak to that issue. It offers a vague and incomplete explanation of the products affected by the 50% drop in revenues. It makes no comment one way or the other. The only people, I am aware of, who suggested otherwise is Gary and Yourself. Gary reported his source is Bart Fisher. I have resevations about the truthfullness of comments made to me.
In one post he said "no," another he said "not to my knowledge," another he says he spoke to "Russel Fisher," and finally dodges the question saying: "Its in the Q." I find the inconsistancy and vagueness of his answers to mean that HE does not know the answer to my question at all and NEVER HAS. Personally, I don't care if the answer is positive or negative. I just want to know if the Revenue reduction is somthing that will bleed over to the second quarter.
I get the impression he is itching for me goto the SEC. Do you think he is suggesting I ask the SEC?
Bix
Re: SEC
Are you asking me to bring my question to the SEC?
Bix.
The Q does not answer the questions I am asking. Although, I am encouraged to see you do not speculate on its meaning, I would still like to know:
1) what are "core" products.
2) How did they perform in Q4'00?
3) How did they perform in Q1'00?
Definition: For purpose of the above questions. "Core" products are those procucts which CBQI kept after changing its "business model." Did the "core" business suffer from decline in revs?
Gary, As a shareholder, I would like verification that REV decline was "solely" due to elimination of "non-core" business.
Bix
RICH D
While your at it GARY, let me know how serious they are about going NAZ.
Bix
Gary - Note from RB
Gary
The shareholder letter say's "Please do not hesitate to contact our investor relations to share your opinions, concerns, and suggestions as to how to improve the enterprise. As a publicly traded company, it is vital that we communicate on an ongoing basis with our shareholders." - Would that be you??
If so I would like to suggest a PR on the CyberChina conference. I would also suggest they do a reverse split in an effort to raise the share price to the $3-4 range so that CBQ can be considered as an investment to organizations that WILL NOT consider a .27 stock.
If I should forward this to another IR person please pass on that persons address so my suggestions ARE passed on to Bart as HE requested.
Thank You Bart for asking!
Eagles
Dont know Da.
But Im currious to know if Greg Allen paid more to CBQI than CBQI paid to INVEST.. I know Invest walked away with over three quarters of a million shares for Reliance.
Bix
Gary, You are not exempt from the rules either. You and Frank have been calling be a basher for over two months. Now Frank deletes my post because I call someone a "hypester." LOL
Either your ego has taken control of your judgement or your just not as smart as I thought you were. Equal standards is why I came here.
As to these other issues your raising. You may be able to detract from the truth over on your CBQI thread but I will not allow you to do it here. I have left a message for you in the parking lot. I explained in detail why I believe you need to make some things right with me. If you disagree, do it there. This is not appropriate here.
No I think the Q speaks to the issue better than I.
It does not suggest, as you have, that 100% of the loss in revenues applies "solely" to discontinued operations.
In fact, according to DA, it actually suggests the opposite. The "q" mentioned the loss in revs, change in Business Model, and focus on continued product lines(white box systems-now core business)in context with the $1.5 Million loss.
I am saying: It fails to speak about the detailed impact that declining revenues will have on current product lines. We ougnt not have to speculate about the details of the loss in business.
Bix
DA,
Untill I hear back from Matt, Im going to spare GAry and Frank (AKA OLDBLUE) effort of deleting my posts.
You will find my responces on RB.
The revenues are declining. Gary knows why. IMHO, That is why he will not disclose the information. If he doesn't know why, he has right to say he does.
Bix.