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,
YOU ARE A NARCICIST FOR BELIEVING I WANT TO BUY ADDITIONAL STOCK.
WHAT I WANT IS A STANDARD OF HOLDING YOU AND OTHERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING MISLEADING AND HYPED COMMENTS TO INNOCENT THIRD PARTIES WHO LACK THE KNOWLEDGE YOU HAVE.
BRING ON THE SEC. THEY WILL SEE THIS STOCK COST ME 95% OF MY PRINCIPAL. YOUR MANIPULATING THIS STOCK. NOT THE MMS. YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT UP THE IDEA OF ME BUYING SHARES FROM THE COMPANY IN EXCHANGE FOR A BROKER SUPPORT AGREEMENT GARY. NOT ME. AS YOU'LL RECALL, I STOPPED TALKING TO YOU IN PERSON SINCE THEN. HMMMM..
I JUST WANT YOU TO BE MORE HONEST IN YOUR ASSESSMENT OF WHERE THIS COMPANY IS AND WHERE IT IS GOING.. YOU ACT AS THOUGH THIS COMPANY HAS NO FLAWS. IT HAS MANY. NO COMPANY IS WITHOUT FLAWS.
THEIR IS NO HARM IN DISCUSSING THOSE FLAWS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO ME DIRECTLY, YOU MAY TALK TO ME ABOUT THIS IN THE PARKINGLOT. THIS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR DIRECT DEBATE ON THIS TOPIC. I HAVE ALREADY MADE MY COMMENTS ABOUT YOUR CENSORSHIP OF MY POSTS ON THIS BOARD.
BIX
BOP
Thank you again for your responce. Is there any reason you failed to address my comment about applying equal "standards?"
Gary and Frank are the biggest name callers on that thread. Prior to 5/11/01, I dont' recall one post they did not label me a basher. They use terms like SPIN instead of addressing the real questions.
Now since your post, I am reading a comment by Gary that indicates he will delete more of my posts. That is a shame considering his self admited financial interest in this stock. Its biased. Plain and simple. I have not heard from IHUB on this issue, only you. I guess I need to address Matt to get IHUB's stance on this.
The worst part is: Gary has made some egredious distortions of what I believe to be the truth and now he is free to surpress my oppinions.
P.S. I do not agree that Minorities are ignored in a Demorcracy. They are the reason for its evolution. "Every man has equal rights." America's development of representative democracy, while not a pure democracy, is the closest we have on earth.
The information you provided fails to support your allegation Gary.
If the company lost a buck, I belive you would say somthing liek "EBITA" was .04 cents per share.
Your credibility to me has been severely compromised. You want to post "I SAID SO" comments, better hope they come true. I am not the one will owe explantions too.
Bix
Once again,thank you for the thoughtfull post.
My complaint is not that a COB delelets my posts. It is that the standard applied by COB is not being applied consistantly.
For example: http://www.investorshub.com/beta/read_msg.asp?message_id=109090
This is clasic CBQI thread BS. In the above link you will see that my post was deleted because it contained the word "hypesters". Now these same people label me a basher. Clearly, the COB is applying biased standards for unacceptable posts. If not, then why not delete posts containing the word "basher?"
The answer is simple. These individuals are hypocrits. They boldly call me a basher and delete my post for calling them hypesters. They own shares in the company (some more than others) and they want IHUB to grant them authority to create a forum that actively discriminates against points of view that shed negative light on a stock to shield their vested financial interests. Its unethical and its absurd.
The truth is, Gary wants the ability to Harrass any negative point of view and them delete defending posts. Gary calls this impression management. He is managing the impression that other may have if they read the opposing argument. Its Bad form. Democracy is based not on the pricipal of protecting the rights of the majority. It is based on the pricipal of protecting the rights of the minority from oppression and discrimination by the majority. Gary wants a FEUDAL form of government that allows COBs the authority to oppress the views of the minority. I want a demorcracy, and if you take a poll, so does the majority. If you allow posts to be deleted, their needs to be an easy way to have them reposted if it is dertimined the COB is wrong.
Tollerating one groups assult on another is wrong. If you label me a "basher", and delete me for labeling you a "hypester," you are showing your hypocracy by electively discriminating against me.
BOP
Sorry I missed this before.
RE: In Conclusion, If you want to see the words you posted in message #1836 on the CBQI thread, post them in the proper thread. If you wish to engage in a verbal altercation with Gary...take it to The Parking Lot.
I was waiting in the Parking Lot before I came here. Gary is avoiding the discussion.
I share your optimism but not your interpretation of the Q.
Da!
Cant risist this pun. The name says it all. My calculations are honest and reliable. Unfortuneately, It is difficult to make the leap without knowing the facts. My calculations were put together backwards because Gary chose not to answer my questions.
If he gives me the information, He may find that it will not necessarily be used in a negative mannor. Da!
LOL
BOP
Thank you for making the time to review the post. Are you associated with IHUB professionally (Employed) or a self appointed COB? IF so which Thread.
Although I am disappointed in your opinion, I am encouraged by your dilligence.
AS to your additional comments(i.e. Tone and Harrassment): I think it is important to look at the "Big Picture." Gary has been goading me to do analysis that I am unwilling to do without knowing specific information. Rather than let the conversation end, he makes personal attacks on my integrity because I do not "DO WHAT HE ASKS."
A couple replies.
DA!
I am well aware that Gary justifies the April press release about $ 27 Million ARRR by calling it a "guage." You do not realize, my core issue with this release is that it came at a time that the quarter had ended which would allow the company to address the reduction in revs.
Instead, CBQI fed us the fluff story over disclosing the declining revenue performance. Technically its Gary's selected term. Not mine.
Revenue projection is a standard projection. Confused about that or not, I certainly hope you understand I am not about to fall into the trap of "assuming" the decline was "solely" a result of discontinued operations.
Wich Brings me to your comment in 1868:
Your suspicion was proven erroneous, because the filing clarified the fact that the revenue loss stemmed entirely from the change in the hardware distribution business.
"ENTRELY" never appeared in the Q
Furthermore, the Q completely ignores the question: What percentage of the total reduction in revs was allocated to "core" and "non-core" business? Gary says 100% non-core. When I asked him 'Did core bsiness decline?', he first said "not to my knowledge." Then, later in the night, he omniously states "Rus Fisher told him." Then I ask what are the percenges and he now quoates the vaige line in the Q. This inconsistancy is troubling. On top of all this, he continues to avoid my question. He is detracting attention from the issue with this talk about his preferred choice of analysis. Now I'm currious: Is answering my question that big of an effort for him? Or is he trying to avoid disclosing negative information because it contradicts his prior posts?
I trusted Gary's hype long ago. It cost me then, I wont let it cost me now. He is baised and allows his professional affiliations and vested financial interest affect his judgment.
AND THE BEST FOR LAST: ZEP THE MAN. OR ARE YOU A WOMAN?
Do you have any relationship to CBQI? How many shares did the company give you? Which acquisition do you come with? One of your earlier posts on RB's CBQI is a hype (post # 3068): In it you said:
Gary...thought I would mention that I received a very prompt and thoughful email from John Harris. He was kind enough to take a moment from his busy schedule to address my concerns about the overt manipulation of CBQI by those waskely MM'rs.
One sentence of his response was particularily welcome. He stated "We have applied for NASDAQ listing, and continue to work toward fulfilling ALL of our goals".
Isn't it ironic that a majority of those goals remain unachieved? I suppose only a mature investor would make excuses for and remain happy about this pattern of deciet.
Bix
I'll look for it in a minute.
PUMP AND DUMP Post.
I dont know the exact number.
Gary,
What possible motif do you have by avoiding my question? This does little to prevserve your self proclaimed status as a "consistant" moderator.
Oh Please ... OK Bix lets try it this way. ARRR is 27M (12M Quantum & 15 recent acquisitions) which is the revenues for 2000 and since it is last year it is not adjustable. You then take the APRR or ALRR and use it as the second variable that is know because it is a know variable. Since we do not yet have the 15M APRR or ALRR we cannot evaluate that portion of the APRR and won’t until the second quarter so to get that information we have to wait for SOCT to report to the
SEC for the year end and 1st quarter since those will not be on CBQ books.
The Question is: What percentate of the total decline in revenues was allocated to "core" vs "non-core" revenue for both 4Q of 2000 and 1q of 2001?
All we can take is the Quantum APRR and other LOCKED variables, which was 12M and the loss associated. Also one note the discontinued operations did not just stop in September there were account receivable and payable that were still on the books when the operations were ended that carried over to the next quarter. That is why this 1st quarter of 2001 is the only basis for figuring the evaluation.
Now this is mistake on your part. A revenue is calulated in the quarter that it was generated and not subsequent quarters in which it was collected. To count in both instances is just plain wrong. A/Rs are an asset. Revenues are essentially sales. This, I attribute to poor attention to detail probably a result of lack of sleep.
Now by having 1.5M this quarter which is only Quantum basically, the revenues for this year on that known variable is 4 x 1.5M which makes it 6M APRRR (Annual Projected Revenue Run Rate) another words this years estimate. Since the ARRR is 12m and the APRRR is 6m that is a reduction in revenues of 50%… However, you do not want to look at the other locked variable.
Again Gary. Read my post you will see I said,
Just so we are discussing the same method of analysis. I have these questions regardless of what varibles are locked. Flatter me if you dont mind.
So if you take the ALPRR (Annual Loss/Profit Run Rate) as per the 10Ks but till then I have gone pulled the known LOCKED constant variables myself. Look at what Bart got into in Dec 1999 and what he did by 2000. Increased the Annual Revenue
Run Rate from 729K to 12M counting all four quarters, of which, the 1st quarter did not show up on CBQ’s books no
pooling of interest, but look at the APLRR, and the APRR..
At the risk of sounding redundant, I fear you have missed the point: If you want me to do the math,I have these questions regardless of what varibles are locked. Without them, it is irresponsible to suggest revenues will do anything but decline in the future. This ought not be such an effort for your to understand. You show tremendous intelligence when trying to make a point but completely ignore my comments and questions. What gives?
Now since we are not at the end of 2001 thus these variables (Not adjusted) are what we can use to estimate 2001 growth and estimate the projected annual run rate. Bart in his first year brought in 13 times more revenues and cut the loss 44% so the Annual Percent Run Rate Improved 44 % .Now we can take the first quarter of 1999, 2000, & 2001 to see if we can any improvement in the business (Now I typically do not do this because people like to say I stated this as a fact and all this is, is a way of evaluating yourinvestment) this is directly from the filings No pooling of interest taking into account.
I disagree on both points. Not only did I indicate the variables that would be a better alternative, I explained why. Cash Flow is a perfectly acceptable way to analyze a company's performance. You have completely ignored this method. It is one of the major variables used by banks and other creditors when determining credit. They look at cash flow to access risk, interest rates, and approve credit. APRR, ARRR, and ALRR is a poor method, and in my oppinion, a self invented method of analysis. Annual Percentage Rate is a term that applies to credit cards and not stocks. I tried to look up the term Annual Revenue Run Rate on the net and it is not listed on any of the search engines nor is it in the encyclopedia. Cash Flow however, is. Secondly, all variables are adjustable with Quarterly reports.
There you go … finish the math and feel free to check mine. Maybe you can see why I merely
want you to go on with your variables and calculations that you have so obsessively screamed
foul as you underlying basis that they need to get positive earnings. I apologize they miss
having earnings by 86K. I think it clearly shows what and how effective and efficient Bart
and the company are doing.
Now if you want you can do this across the board on any part in the filings you want. I am not sure where all that nonsense came from but all you have to do is going reading the filings and do your math with the filings as an underlying basis.
Again, at the risk of sounding redundant, I fear you have missed the point: If you want me to do the math,I have these questions regardless of what varibles are locked. We can not assume the answer to be a positive one simply becuase "Gary Said So." However, since you know the answers:
What revenues were generated from core product lines in Q4 2000?
What revenues were generated from core product lines in Q1 2000?
If they increased, I agree Bart is doing a good job. If not, I may still think he is doing a good job depending on how much core business declined.
Regardless, I asked for the numbers, and said you knew it the 50% reduction applies only to non-core or "discontinued operations." What are the numbers?
BOP
Is their a way for me to obtain deleted posts?
Bix
Gary,
Unless you somehow relisted my deleted post, you make an argument that is difficult for me to prove a false statement.
Bix
That is the type of comment I would expect from a stock site that condones censorship.
Whethor described as a Right or a Privilege, Privileges that are not evenly applied to individual members is discrimination. Is that what IHUB is wishes to do?
IMHO, Discrimination based on a biased financial interest is completely unethical and ought not be tolerated by any stock site.
That is 100% verifiable fact. Read my posts. Then read your comments. The replies. Everything.
You act real smart when your trying to make a point and real dumb when reading mine. Your a smart cookie. Give it your honest effort.
RE: you gave no link to justify again that you constantly say I say thing when in fact it is a jubbled up personal interpretation. Only a spin and you are the analyst screaming variables and you do not even know the differnce of the adjustable varibles and constant variables like APRR which is the the locked figure for last year
These are your variables.. Not mine. Once again, if your took the time to go back and read my post, I explained prior to your mentioning the word variables... "ARRR,APRR,ALRR are not the best was to forcast CBQI's future." I gave my reason as well: "The company is going through a lot of change." Then I suggested you and I both take our focus off your method of analysis and look at Cash Flow and Revs. These are both potentually positive IF 100% of the loss was attributed to the discontinued operations which I understand is the case, according to you (Correct?).
I did not say I was "unwilling" to do the projections but rather stated that I dont think APRR,ARRR, and ALRR is an effective projection of the future. However, if do go back and re-read my posts and then your own, I am confidant that you find my position a credible one. It is not "Spin." I resent that view considering the content of my posts and more specifically, their tone earlier in the discussion. You were stalking me and proded me into this discussion and now you fail to provide the opportunity to close it. It is appearing that you do not wish to discuss this at all. You are more interested in dragging it into a new discussion.
Go back to my original reply to your APRR,ARRR, and ALRR post. Read it and we try this discussion again.
But you do not want to use the other locked variables so now you want to spin that they have to be adjusted. That is nonsense. They are the variables that are use with the current information to calculate the effeciency of the company in its growth and profitablility to revenues.
Once again, you were the one who began the discussion about this subject. To project an accurate ARRR for 2001, a reasonable person will account for potential growth or decline in revenues (each quarter). If the orginal revenue projection was $ 27 million before revs decreased by 50% then it is reasonable to adjust your ARRR in line with the current Quarterly report. In this case $21 Million (w/o accounting for projection of continued losses in revs for rest of year). But you can not stop at $ 21 Million if the revs are on the decline because we do not know for certain that thoses losses are attributed "solely" to discontinuation of specific non-core operations. If the revenues declined by 50% in Jan-Mar, why would anyone want to assume they will level off in Apr-Jun? Some PC manufactures reported concerns that the demand for hardware replacement may continue to fall until after June of 2001. Considering we are talking industry specific demand for hardware, we can combine that knowledge with CBQI's 1st quarter performance and project a continued decline in revenues through June 30, 2001. What you call spin, I call logic. If demand is falling in the industry overall, why should any of us expect it to rise for CBQI? This is why my question is so important. If the core business fell, we need to know by how much to make a reliable projection. While I do not think the core business fell by 50%, I refuse to accept your comment that core business stayed the same or increased when compared to Q4 2000.
Re: Now you want to spin they have to have ajustments. PLease. That is a terrible spin. You do not adjust constant variables.
Just so we are discussing the same method of analysis. I have these questions regardless of what varibles are locked. Flatter me if you dont mind.
Re: MY goodness I thought you knew how to evaluate properly. Example:"if revenues in core business increased by 10% then the ARRR must include an adjustment to compensate for the growth. ... No offense but what the devil are you talking about. Several things wrong here. the drop in revenues and then adjustment for growth??? That alone is a contradiction in terms.
Simple projection Gary. Going by your comment. "The 50% decline was a result of discontinued operations," CBQI's Core business may actually have grown. All we know is that it lost 50% of its revenues and it shut down the distribution leg. We do not know what the other "core" devisions did in 4Q '00 nor do we know what "core" devisions did in 1Q '01. If core devisions did $ 1 Mill in 4Q of 00 then we can smile at the $1.5 Mill it achieved the following quarter. If, and this was only an example, this is what happend, we are witnessing a 50% increase in core revenues. If we continue to project 50% gains, we would be looking at 1.5 M in q1, 2.25 M in q2,3.37 in q3, and 4.92 M in q4. OR.. projected sales of 12.04 Million in 2001. That would be in line with the press release reflecting the ARRR of $27 Million. Now if that is what is happening, which I doubt, I think it needs to be relased because it shows outstanding prospects for the future of this company. However, I am only using this as an example and do not suggest anyone use the press release to justify the above projections. They were invented solely for the purpose of this discusion and should not be construed literally.
APRR must include an adjustment, I hate to tell you APRRs do not get adjustments it is the locked know constant variale of last year. Unless you are out to deceive the public with a false evaluation. If you adjust the ANNUAl run Rate you are tampering with a constant variable used to calculate the value of the company in the present year. Get some sleep Bix you are making yourself look bad even to a novice.
Once again. If you want me to answer your question with respect to APRR,ALRR, and ARRRR, I want the figures regardless of the method you choose to use.
Thank You
Bix
GARY
Your continued biased views toward any posts that is in direct conflict with your personal and vested financial interests is an egredgious TOS violation. Censorship, is not acceptable unless it is balanced. You call my posts disruption and delete them. If you are going to do that you better be deleting the Hype as well. Screaning out the negative alone is my complaint with you. Your employment with CBQI and Options at an inflated price are affecting your judgment. My posts, while negative, do not attack you or anyone else. I have the right to be heard.
Bix.
P.S. Deletion of negative posts is much more disruptive to the credibility of on-line stock sites than my posts are. If IHUB allows this unwarranted behavior, it will become the SUCKER's SITE, where investors come to chat one another up for making bad decisions. OR worse, talk each other into making more. Your view of what a site should be causes many on RB not to post here. We loose our money, we have a right to vent our emotions. Potential investors ought to know that as well.
You said: Post Number 1842
"The reduction in Revs was on discontinued operations. Like it or not. But wait your opoint was originally earnings. they are cash positive and profit before depreciation which you already stated that is not a real loss."
Now what where the discontinued operations? Distribution and Parts. (Source: The "Q")
What are core products? The White Boxes are "core" products because they are part of continued operations. By saying the decline in revenues is "solely" (emphasis added) a result of discontinued operations then your saying the companys core business did not decline at all. Since White box are core products, you are therefore suggesting that sales of white box systems did not decline.
Or are you know suggesting you do not know the answer to the question I was asking? Realizing your human, it is possible you were mistaken. And that is cool as long as you admit it. But you are adamantly suggesting in your posting that the 50% decline in revenues is the sole result of the elimination of the parts and distribution leg.
On a more direct example, I asked, you repeated my question, and then you answered: POST # 1828
Did that reduction apply to the core business?
No the distribution arm, which was discontinued
Are we loosing business?
Not that I am aware ... they are pursuing and focused on getting more core business
This post contradradicts following posts. In this post you do not sound so sure of your answer. Yet you later say Russ Fisher told you. Thats the basis for my mistrust. You don't sound so sure of yourself on these questions. It stands to reason that if you had a conversation with Russ Fisher it would have been during business hours and not in between these two posts. If that is incorrect, please say so.
Why are these questions important? Simple the APRR And ARRR and ALRR all take adjustments for growth or loss. For example: if revenues in core business increased by 10% then the ARRR must include an adjustment to compensate for the growth. I was asking for these numbers to make those adjustments.
I did not plan to conduct this analysis and even posted that I did not find them appropriate because of the turbulance in the organization (ie. Discontinuation of divisions and acquisitions)POST # 1780. You spun my reply into a comment suggesting I am not using proper variables (post #1783) which I politely ignored until you goaded me into doing the math on post # 1828. FINE. Then get me the damm information. Otherwise keep to yourself and stop critizing me for doing nothing more than attempting to satisfy the all mighty god of CBQI.
Thats your link providing you dont delete them. I am ready to accept that apology now.
LINK COMMING
GARY AND DA.
GARY First
1) RE: Thi snext filing we can then make a good guess on the revenues this year and the by taking the other variables we will be able to see the profitability that is coming as they build the business."
Too bad we have to wait that long to know the answer now. The question is based on first quarter results and not second quarter. The answers certainly demonstrate the future. Whats wrong with knowing them now?
2)RE: The Dinner.
If you really do feel that way you could have offered to pick up the tab. Sid was the only one ready to pay and he drove for two stinking counties to get their.
3) I have not heard from you in the parking lot
DA
Let me make this simple since you are so blinded by the theory of believing everything you read.
I am asking the following:
1) How many custom white box systems were sold in the fourth quarter of 2000.
2) How many custom white box systems were sold in the first quarter of 2001.
3) Other than custom whit box systems, how did other "core" business products perform in q1 2001 compared to q4 2000?
Got it?
Bix
Excellent point Da
Nowhere in that release can anyone draw the conclusion that the decline was due to the reduction of its sales of white box custom builds or discontinuation of the parts and distribution. All it says is its due to a "change in the company's business model in its subsidiary, Quantum distribution."
Did white box custom build sales decrease? According to Gary NO. You trust who you want. I'm saying, it is not clear as to wether the Revs declined as a result of a decrease in the core product lines described above.
Did Quantum sell less "custom white boxes." Gary says no. I dont beleive him. Their is no verifiable breakdown other than Gary's word.
Is this the same Russ Fisher who negotiated that reverse merger into Chinasoft?
I know you very well Despy and I tell you what I will apologize for the following.
1. That you got upest because you did not get stock but I numerous newsletters wanting stock to promote and to date not one of them has gotten stock and will not as long as I can have any say in it.
An amaizing fabrication on your part. I am upset that I own this stock. I'm certainly not disappointed I did not get more. You make this stock sound like its in demand. CBQI has 36 Million in the float and only 465 investors. How many of those shares sold today? Only 4,000. The fact that I do not own more is a result of my choice to wait till the company proves its capable of sustained earnings(which remain negative with depreciation).
2. That you lost 95% but I was buying at $12.50 myself 50% higher than you and I know investment institutions buying at $14.50 and they are not screaming. The market ran and crash and if you want me to apologize for that fine. Considering most of the market has crash 80% - 90% and by your reasoning that makes the entire market a P&D.
No. That I will not blame you for. I choose to buy into a fairtale on my own. I may not like the fact I got burned, but I do not blame anyone else.
3. for the low volume and wide spreads in the bid/ask and that the TA numbers proves there was nothing in the 144 that tqank it as you posted under Despy and later most of the same people show up in this 10K with their holdings.
Another invention? I honestly do not know what 144 your talking about? Cythia Jared? These folks cant sell. Only 4000 shares were purchased today? But that begs the question: Who's 4000 shares were dumped?
Now you want me to apologize for that which you have posted is inaccurate and fabrication or posted under a selective bias and total disregard for the truth Nope you got the wrong man
INACCURATE? FABRICATION? Everyone here knows the fluf 27 M comment was released at a time that the company knew its first quarter results were down 50%. You of course, being the IR man, would never apologize for any "misleading" press. That would require that you see a problem with that type of hype. You justify this action with BS about it being a guage. Thats where we disagree. Technically, you may be right. Its a guage. Its not a forcast nor is it an expectation of reality. But rather than shed light on realistic expectectations, this company choses fluff stories. Now this same company tells me that the 50% reduction in revenues is "solely" a result of discontinued operations. Ok, I will trust that comment for now. But when the day comes that point is proven to be a fluff comment to cover up a loss of core business, you wont owe me an apology. The apology you'll owe is to every shareholder of this company. I care less about getting one. I dont trust it anyway.
WHO AT THE COMPANY?
You bet I'm mad.
First you delete my posts responding to your questions and then you say they are "off-topic"
Ive lost too much damm money trusting you as a reliable source. You said you had access to all my RB posts.
Go read the first five by Despy on CBQI. See who the BS artists were that screamed what great deal this was and alledging to have "inside" information. You may have a few new ones, but certain names haven't changed.
It was a damm farse then and it will continue to be a farse till you can back up your hype. Pump and dump is based on the deception that their is more to a company than actually exists. The only thing CBQI has is 465 investors screaming what a great investment this is and misleading PR.
TIME WILL BE MY JUDGE. Your man enough to call me a liar. Will you be man enough to apologize?
Bix.
SOURCE GARY.. WHO IS YOUR SOURCE..?
THAT's my question.
SOLID UNDERLYING BASIS?
PUMP AND DUMP!!!
CBQI posts it has $ 27 million ARRR and Revs decline 50%. Big mistake. Especially considering it was done at a time that the quarter had ended.
All I want is the source to the details. Your not reliable source of information. Your vested financial interest is affecting judgment here.
If you cant answer my question. Say you cant answer it. Considering the pickle your in on this point. I would respect that.
But dont say: Its 100% "non-core" rev loss and then BS me with this line: "The company told me so."
Bix
CBQI is the biggest dog in my portfolio. It is nowhere near the ARRR it advertised in its press release. I called it a misrepresentation then and I will call it misrepresentation now. Its clasic "PUMP AND DUMP" GARY. All these quarter million share investors probably pay for your internet connection so they have a chance at getting Fifty Grand. Sid told me at dinner he thinks this is a Fifty dollar stock. I see now how he meant that. One grand for each dollar. Thats all he'll see.
Your continued deletion of my posts are typical of someone with a vested financial interest in the tone of of this conversation. Your decision to delete my post gives credance to the argument that you play God with your authority. I caution you that Censorship of "negative" points of view by the IR who has a vested financial interest in this company will cost you much. Knock it off.
I've had just about enough of your distortion and then deletion followed by attacks on integrity. You want to talk to me, you need to make some things right with me first. You have no source for your information. Thats why you cant provide it. Take this conversation to a place where you cant delete me.
T H E P A R K I N G L O T
IF THATS THE CASE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN DOIN YOUR JOB TODAY. MEET ME IN THE LOT. AT LEAST YOU CANT MANIPULATE THE TRUTH BY DELETING MY POSTS THERE!
GARY
Well Bix the problem I have with what you are doing is I know and have what you posted before. You only mention earnings twice before you got removed from Raging Bull. You have expressed a lot of scenarios that contradict what you posted earlier.
I told you before my only requirement in the integrity of a poster.
I have been silent about this comment for some time. It was the first time you offended me. This was uncalled for and represents irresponsible behavior as an EMPLOYED IR agent for CBQI. Lets look at the message you responded to. In retrospect, you may find it was olive branch(As intended).
Gary,
This conversation started because I expressed that it was my oppinion that CBQI's stock deflated because it "was" overvalued. When asked why I felt that way, I said it was due to a lack of earnings. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Does it matter? Lets cap the rhetoric and talk about the facts. I think you are nice guy and enjoyed having dinner with you. We will not agree on everything but don't have to. I bote to burry this teacher student thing and accept the fact that we have two different oppinions. Are there any time filing reqirements for an 8-K? If not, when is the soonest that we will learn how much stock did CBQI give away to acquire
Bix.
Your previous message include the comment:
You make reference to a "Broker Support Agreement" and the only place after searching through my notes and the internet, I could only that rhetorical phase find that was in the potential "1stinhealth" acquisition in March 2000, which did not close.
As an outsider looking in at this conversation, you would not recognize what has happened here. You do. I left this alone because it occured to me that perhaps the comments I made may have unknown implications on you as the employed IR rep. Granted, I do not agree with you on multiple fronts, but I have no agenda to harm or hurt you professionaly. You covered your tracks real well. My problem is rather than letting sleeping dogs lie, you call my integrity into question and then distort the facts in a mannor that it becomes "my word against yours."
Fine. It's over? No you do it again:
You say:
HUH? you use those variables to calculate the management's performance. I find it interesting that you do not like using proper evaluation variables in your opinions and comments about this security. You are being extremely bias and once you are challenged on your nonsense then suddenly only certain variables are acceptable.
That makes no sense
But the deduction of contracts from the annual run rate is being done and that is the filings and the results as per this last quarter. The discontinued operations apparently had 50% of the revenues and so apparently since the core business is a 50% GM the lost revenues would have had to be what for the GM to be 32% ... the GM on the lost revenues would had to have been aound 16% GM.
It is these little things that you selectively overlook. Now that the profit is coming and lacks just a bit to overcome the depreciation .. I will await your next selective bias.
:=) Gary Swancey
You are deliberately asking me to make revenue projections knowing that the "little details" are not being disclosed. Then you spin it a way that this is my fault? Sure I'll do the APRR and the ALRR. BUT ANSWER THE QUESTION! Where is the source? If you have none, its a damm shame your the IR because tells me you will post any nonsence that makes you look and CBQI look good. Combine that with the previous argument and we have a pattern of avoiding the truth.
FYI: In case you dont recall, I indicated the comment was made on the telephone and you responde: "I CANT FIND IT ON THE NET." Why look on the net for documentation of a verbal conversation? Better delete that post too.
CORRECTION:
RE: BTW COMMENT.IH Admin advised me the "DO NOT" condone censorship of "negative" posts.
Sorry about the mistake.
Gary
No offense, but I'd like to know your source. I am sincerely interested in confirming that the 50% reduction in revs applies "soley" to the discontinuation of operations. Its an important detail because a reduction in last years revs, under standard investment strategy, should be expected to continue this year unless it can be pubicly explained. If the reduction in revs is not publically addressed, we as investors do not know if the "core" business is decreasing or growing. Growth through acquisition is good but CBQI must also,IMHO, demonstrate an ability to grow w/o acquisition to become successful at convincing potential investors they will get a return on their investment. Where is this sorce? It is critical information to make the projections you keep asking me to make. Your IR so you must have a source. If it is not disclosed for a reason, you ought not say what you have sid. The PRs do not get into addressing this detail.
On a personal note:
Insinuating that I am selectively biased for NOT blindly following your comments is a bold misrepresentation of my admissions. Meet me in the parking lot. I'll be waiting.
BTW: Dont know where you got your information, but I am not restricted to a certain number of posts per day. After you deleted my posts, IH Admin advised me they condone censorship of "negative" posts and asked that I post less than 5 times per day for one week to be assured I was not harrassing anyone. That was at a time that I was responding to 20 posts individually. I think I made around 10-20 posts that week. That was over a month ago.
I do not believe CBQI's STOCK price is affected by anyone's post. Only people saying otherwise are investors looking for excuse for poor performaning stock. "Its manipulation" is a total farce.
Only 465 people own this stock. Several of thoses had shares given to them. That is why price is so low. No one is buying it.
SENSORED?
Sorry to hear you got zapped at RB. Someone reported you for TOS vilolation. I got a letter from the admin here once, asking for my side of the story when Gary deleted my posts.
I answerd him truthfull and sincere. (In a Nutshell: "My posts are deleted and I'm labled a basher because I choose not to believe the hype.") Never heard from him since.
Dont like to hear anyone is sensored. This is public domain. One person gets sensored, we all suffer. Did you check my picks frank? Earned 10% in one week! : )
Good Luck Frank
A Few Replies
Sid,
Your analysis is correct. That is why I decided not to average down after meeting with you and Gary. Instead, I'm going with a more secure bet and less risk. I Picked up Shares of BVF INVG & RYL for that purpose.
Gary,
Your point is taken to heart. It is always best to be non-biased when looking at a security. Truth is I dont comment on several issues because of that. However, my admitted biased has nothing to do with me conducting specific types of analysis on CBQI. I never agreed to conduct APRR and ALRR. But considering the source asking me to make those projections, I am confidant they reflect positively on the company.
At this time, I am waiting to see how cash flow and revenue looks at year end. If the quarterly reports show a radical curve up, I may change my oppinion sonner. There's nothing here now that wont be here then.
Cheers,
Bix
Good Luck Gary
I selectively choose to be biased against any stock that costs me 95%. I must be the only one who thinks investing should make you some money.
Heard the saying: Screww me once, its your fault. Screw me twice, its my fault? Thats my attitude. CBQI was a bad investment when I bought it. It does not appear to be any differant now. I'll take it on the chin and accept the loss. I'm making money on the market overall. Just not here.
Bix
EARNINGS ARE UP
That is good. Its a step forward.
I have not completed the Liability and Profit run rate because I find it inappropriate to use last years performance to "gauge" the future of this company. CBQI is not "digging in." It continues to change year to year. Good or Bad, the change, makes the APRR,ARRR, ALRR analysis useless. Furthermore, the analysis your asking about would require much more detailed disclosure by CBQI (i.e. better description of revenues and liabilities). Just like you deduct depreciation from liabilities, you need to deduct revs from annual run rate when an anual contract is terminated or lost.
There are two honest ways to gauge this company(Revenue and CashFlow). CashFlow Analysis is best guage for CBQI. Revenue tells a story as well. One question I have not seen asked: What percentage of the decline in revenue was from the "core" business? Sure, I'd like to assume it was all from discontinued operations. But we don't know that. Did the company loose a pecentage of its "core" business? Did the "core" business stay the same or grow?
Gary
Is it reasonable to say that CBQI outsourcing to China will occur from EasySoft and not ChinaSoft? CBQI's Chinese branch of Chinasoft has no programming staff. The overseas operations of Chinasoft consist of thrid parties who get bids on software jobs from other Chinese firms(non-CBQI Firms). They are expecting CBQI's American operations to funnel the jobs to them so they can farm it out to someone else. That is not the most competitive way to outsource nor is it practical when other companies (Such as EasySoft) have staffed Chinese programers.
This IMHO is a failure when viewed in context of what CBQI paid for the Chinasoft operation vs Easysoft.
Bix
Dont beleive everything you read. Gary is posting what he believes to be true.
The Q reflects a move in the right direction Its important to note that depreciation is a "Non-Cash" liability. Its standard practice to deduct it from the bottom line when evaluating cash flows. Any increase in cash position is good. Many managers will deliberately try to operate with positive cash flows and negative profits to minimize Tax Liability. After seeing the unexpected decline in revs, I am still reserved on making additional buys at these prices.
I may look at CBQI as an investment after it generates positive earnings inclusive of ALL liabilities(i.e. depreciation). Until then, I'm sticking with IVGN and BVF(Sold FD yesturday). Adding another sure bet: RYL
I am not going to comment about the 10Q. It speaks to the issues more accurately than I can.
CORRECTION,
I think its TECHNET. Not Neworkland.
Sorry.
Bix
First you say its 27, then 23.5, and now your calling it a gauge. It’s wrong because the gauge your using does not contain an adjustment for SOCT's 30% decline in annual revs nor conservative estimates for loss of business to competition.
Unless the company is willing to make an announcement as to the details of Softeon's impact on Networkland's revs, I find it irresponsible to gauge CBQI's 2001 run rate on the assumption that these factors have no impact on "expected" revenues. I am confident that time will indicate your gauge to be a gross exaggeration of reality. Untill we see the 2001 quarterly reports, I will remain skeptic.
Bix