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.
OT
I don't know much if anything about Stidham, except I have heard his name mentioned now and then on threads relating to CBQ. It says in the article you referenced that John Harris, CBQ's former CEO, replaced Stidham as President and CEO of DTGI. Harris was replaced a couple of months ago as President of DTGI by Steven Garrett. I don't see Harris's name associated with the company anymore.
It's never a good sign when NITE throws up a low ceiling.
KG4...nice one. I also like this one from that Unwin character who was a nefarious Prime Minister of England a couple of years ago in a PBS miniseries:
"You might very well think that. You might very well."
If it looks like Ego, smells like Ego, tastes like Ego, well then dadgum it, it's Ego...
Svejk, Svejk, get over it. Let it go. You're so wound up, you're snapping at people who'll even talk to Gary. Now, if that's not a manifestation of Ego, I don't know what is.
Oops! Let's try again:
By: iwasda $$$
Reply To: 17036 by Residuum1 $$$ Wednesday, 9 May 2001 at 11:41 PM EDT
Post # of 17038
Cheers, Res! And thanks. Looks like he may have wanted to use CBQ to set up the sort of exchange he now runs at Oil & Gas Journal Exchange.
The question is: If Williamson has 4.32M shares of CBQI, whatever happened to our 19% of Global Logistics Partners?
And my response:
Here's what Residuum on RB dug up regarding my recent queries here:
By: Residuum1 $$$
Reply To: 17035 by iwasda $$$ Wednesday, 9 May 2001 at 11:00 PM EDT
Post # of 17038
OT: Da!—Regarding GLP Query
"The Global Equipment Exchange had successfully worked on several projects with Imperial Oil dating back to when we were known as Global Logistics Partners," said Rick Williamson, senior vice president of the Oil & Gas Journal Exchange. "The multi-million dollar upstream equipment brokered through us demonstrated our capability and service to Imperial Oil. We anticipate establishing further successes for other clients with the launch of our online exchange."
SOURCE: http://www.ebizchronicle.com/news/august/aug29.htm
Williamson Bio: http://gee.pennnet.com/about/executive_team.cfm
I agree. The question is whether he or someone else would have been able to short against his restricted shares, which is illegal. But you have to be caught for it to be a problem.
MIDLFIASCO, I don't diagree with you at all. The past is the past. The people in this company who made the bad deals are history. But I'm trying to understand this deal, because there's a guy sitting out there with 7+% of this company who doesn't appear to have its best interests in mind. And the number of shares he holds just so happens to roughly match the number of shares estimated in our oversell. That's what focused my attention in the direction of this deal.
Rick Williamson signed the 10Q that was filed with SEC on May 24, 1999, 13 days after he assumed the post of CEO. The 10Q filed in August 1999 was signed by Charles Stidham, CEO. Williamson surely had a short term of office.
I would guess that they did not get the shares back, because in the latest 10K still shows that 4.32M share stock issuance for GLP on its books. It also still shows Rick Williamson as holding 4.23M shares.
What does anyone know about this Rick Williamson character? He owns 7.47% of CBQI, which he appears to have earned as a result of a deal for which he served a matter of weeks as CBQI's Chairman, CEO, and President. CBQ appears to have gotten virtually nothing for his services. I can't determine whether it still owns its 19% of Global Logistics Partners, LLP. I have done some Internet searches to try to track down the existence of Global Logistics Partners, and have come up dry.
Have done some more research regarding the Global Logistics Partners deal CBQ made in May 1999.
Here is an excerpt from the CBQI 10QSB for the third quarter of 1999.
"On May 11, 1999, the Company acquired 19% of the outstanding interest of Global Logistics Partners, LLC, a privately held Texas limited liability company (GLP) in a tax fee exchange. This interest was acquired solely for the issuance of 4,233,200 common shares. Concurrently with the closing, Mr. Richard Williamson assumed the positions of Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO and President of the Company, and GLP assumed day to day operational control of the Company.
During the period of this report, Mr. Williamson resigned and new officers were appointed, as well as new directors to fill vacancies. The Company has now initiated discussions with Mr. Williamson to rescind the acquisition of GLP and obtain the return of the shares issued by the Company to treasury."
Does anyone know whether CBQ was successful in getting its shares back?
Gary, are you familiar with the deal CBQ made with the Global Logistics company? I wasn't following the company closely until a year ago. Can you shed any light on this deal? In the filings it says that CBQ paid 4.23M shares in May 1999 for a 19% share of Global Logistics Partners (GLP). Then this Richard Williamson became Chairman, CEO and Preseident of CBQ and GLP took operational control of the company. After that, Williamson subsequently resigned those positions.
What was the timing of that "subsequently" event? Was it at the time of the Chinasoft reorganization, when Bart took over?
And what were terms involved that brought about the end of GLP's "reign". What happened to the 19% of GLP that CBQ had held? What happened to the 4.23M shares? Does Williamson still control them?
Does anyone know what CBQ ever got out of its 19% interest in Global Logistics Partners for its 4.23M shares?
Note that if Gary's figures are right (which as he says is a best effort calculation), and if that were the result of one force, then it would be worth trying to identify who that might be. There is at least one party who holds that many 144 shares. According to the filings:
"On May 11, 1999, the Company acquired 19% of the outstanding interest of Global Logistics Partners, LLC, a privately held Texas limited liability company (GLP), in a tax-free exchange. This interest was acquired solely for the issuance of 4,233,200 restricted common shares of the Company. Concurrently with the closing, Mr. Richard Williamson assumed the positions of Chairman of the Board of Directors, CEO and President of the Company, and GLP assumed operational control of the Company. Mr. Williamson subsequently resigned all positions with the Company."
Well, Whizz, take another look at Gary's post. If the short interest were a force hat held 144 shares, then covering wouldn't really be the issue, would it? Getting the 144 designation lifted would be. And in case you are wondering, it is illegal to short against 144 shares...
I wish I could make it to the conference next week, but that slot is full on my calendar. I would have liked to get a read on the analyst/institutional attendance, as well as speak to some of the CBQ executives in person. Is anyone else planning on attending?
That's the spirit! I'm not selling either. But you gotta know after the experience of the past year that falling in love with a stock is not a healthy thing to do.
"see" should be "sell" in last post. eom
rich, maybe you should see a thousand shares or so tomorrow just to get yourself out of this funk and prove to yourself that you can do it. Don't get too hooked. I have noticed a lot of stocks taking on an upward bias recently. There are going to be some more runs in the coming days and weeks. Hope you can find another COMM. If the 10Q looks positive and CBQI makes one or two more acquisitions, we may take another run ourselves. Hard to say. Have a good one.
Da!
The price has tripled in the past three to four weeks, Whizz. If we can consolidate that gain while awaiting further developments, then we will be in good shape should those developments materialize. So far, the fact that we have held most of the ground we gained is an indication of strength.
For the stock to rise further, it's no mystery that we need more buying volume. We need to expand our number of shareholders, which was listed as under 500 in the recent 10K. It's good to see another institutional investor.
Let's see what the next three weeks brings, shall we?
As for the shorting scenario...I don't have the answer, save that Gary's work indicates that there is a short position. Whether that gets covered or not remains to be seen.
Gary, any idea when we might see an 8K (I think that's the type of filing) relating to the acquisition of the Technet and Networkland assets?
You guys hold down the fort for the rest of the week. I will be out of town until Monday. May get to check in once or twice, but for the most part will be out of the loop.
Gary, I made a post on the Raging Bull bulletin board today regarding information I have learned relating to the fact that CBQ is leasing employees from Technet.
However, there have been additional issues raised on that board regarding the status of the Technet/Networkland deal, the liabiities CBQ may have inherited, the operational capabilities of Technet and Networkland, the recent Socrates 8K, and some pending matters that might come as an unpleasant surprise to CBQ shareholders.
Is there any information you can share that addresses some of these concerns?
That will depend, MIDLFIASCO.
Gary, this sentence in the release makes absolutely no sense. Are some words missing?
"CBQ, Inc. says it is a full service, end-to-end e-Business solution provider through its software-outsourcing subsidiary EasySoft International Inc., Beijing, China and Miami, Fl., provides technology and network Integration engineering services subsidiary Networkland, Rosslyn, Virginia, software programming and development subsidiary Technet Computer Services, Inc., India and Tyson's Corner, Virginia, and network integration subsidiary, CBQ NETSERV, Hunt Valley, MD."
Gary, a question:
Does CBQI use vendor financing to cover its material needs in the course of business. I would imagine that the Networkland side of things has significant capital requirements for high-tech equipment. How has that been handled?
Vendor financing could free up some serious cash for funding expanded operations, future acquiaitions, stock buybacks, etc.
Another use for shares in the stock buyback that I would encourage CBQI to consider would be for making future acquisitions. This would be especially valuable if and when the stock price appreciates in value. That way, future acquisitions funded all or in part by shares would have the potential of being non-dilutive.
Of course, as the price rises to the point that options are converted into shares obtained by CBQI through the buyback, cash will be generated that could be used for acquisitions as well.
My opinion differs from yours, Whizz. Any company that hopes to be more than a flash in the pan---i.e., wants to build and grow for the long term---needs a lot of shares outstanding. Actually, what it needs is a large float. Institutions will not invest in companies that have small floats. Of course, institutions also will not invest in OTC BB companies. So first things first, I suppose.
There are companies out there with huge amounts of shares outstanding that are no more than stock manipulating and stock issuing machines. CBQI is not one of these. Everything I have seen over the last nine months leads me to believe that this company and its leadership are on the up and up and want to grow a company that generates shareholder wealth based upon revenue and profits.
I would agree with you that there is too much stock out there from one standpoint: I wish that some of the deals in CBQI's past had not been done. They may have contributed to a higher share price for the short-term, but they did not create a viable, sustainable business model that CBQI was able to capitalize on. Time has told us that these shares were misspent.
That said, I do not think there are too many shares outstanding. CBQI is on a growth path right now that, if sustained, will lead it to a revenue level that can easily support 78 million shares outstanding at a per-share price that is much higher than the current 25-cent level. In fact, I would like to see CBQ continue to use its shares to fund acquisitions of the sort recently concluded if they can be done at such an attractive price.
Before CBQI concluded its recent deals, we were told that the average run rate was $15 million. Now the average run rate is $27 million. That's a $12 million gain at a cost of 10 million shares. (There were 66.7 million shares outstanding at the end of 2000. There were 76.7 million shares outstanding as of April 13.) In short, CBQI used shares valued at roughly 20 cents a share to raise its average annual run rate $1.20 per share this year. I call that one helluva bang for the buck, because that is a 600% return...and that's only in the first year. If CBQI doesn't screw up, they should have an equal or even-better run rate in succeeding years.
In fact, I wish they could make ten deals like that. Share dilution, share shmilution! Any deal that nets a sustainable 600% ROI in one year is a good deal.
Now, I'm assuming that the 10 million share increase covered the EasySoft acquisition. I may be wrong about that, but I remember the initial announcement of the EasySoft acquisition stating that it was a non-dilutive purchase. (Gary, is this still true?)
I look forward to seeing the shareholder package and the updated web site, Gary.
Anybody noticed that Gary now has options at .50 to purchase 75,000 shares. IMO, he's earned it and those options will look very attractive before long!
My can you imagine what a little concerted buying would do to this security?
My advice: get them in the .20's while you can.
Looks like shares are hard to come by for our MMs. Somone places a Buy order for a few thousand and they really go into a scramble to get hold of the shares. Ask jumps a nickel in the bargain.
OT: rvd, a brief lesson in posting links:
It's pretty simple, really.
1. Pull up the web site you want to provide the link for.
2. Click your cursor in the address line of the site (the window just below the back button at the top of your browser). The address begins "http://". When you click up there, the whole address should be highlighted blue.
3. Click on the Edit drop down menu and then click on Copy (or use keystrokes: Ctrl-C).
4. Go to the bulletin board where you want to post the link. Write whatever message you want in the New Post field, then hit Enter a couple of times to get on a new line.
5. Click your cursor on the Edit pulldown menu and click Paste (or use keystrokes: Ctrl-V)
6. Hit the Submit Post button. Voila! You're done. (Note that it doesn't look like a link, however, until after you Submit Post.)
devapriya, the two-month timeline was in an article, not issued by CBQI. I believe Gary has said that Bart was misquoted in that portion of the article. This is one of those things that doesn't call for a PR to correct. Part of the role Gary serves is to address the concerns and questions that come up through this medium. He is doing a good job of it, IMO.
rvd, if it's the ChinaOnline I'm thinking of, they are based here in Chicago. Check out this link:
http://www.chinaonline.com/
They always have a wealth of good information about China.
Da!
That Jan. 3 PR contained a pretty strong announcement of financing in advanced stages of negotiation. Gary has hinted pretty clearly that the deal was drawn up in a way that would have been disadvantageous to CBQ and its shareholders---"a deal with the devil." Therefore, CBQ passed and found other means of closing its acquisitions.
Still, they may want to clarify the situation in a future PR. It doesn't have to be the main focus, but could deserve a mention. Something to the effect that CBQ has determined that the best approach to closing acquisitions is via equity arrangements rather than through financing.
Thanks, devapriya. Here is the relevant section from the Jan. 3 PR:
With regard to investment capital from China, Mr. Fisher remarked, "We conducted negotiations with an interested party while in Beijing and established due diligence follow up for them to take place here in the US on our return. Even though there is additional due diligence to be completed, we believe the negotiations have progressed exceedingly well and believe we can look forward to obtaining a minimum of $5 million - $10 million in new financing during the first quarter of
2001."
"After we returned from China, we performed follow up due
diligence on both the programming resource side and potential
investment side, which had to be addressed prior to making this
announcement," said John Moran. "We are please that we were able to complete both follow ups late last week and we are now aggressively moving forward on these fronts."
Thanks, Gary. I'll check for it there.