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.
Stocktrendssetter, about your comments...
The way I read the CEO's Letter, I thought he was referring to Revenues within the market that was transacted as contracted value. When I did reverse math, the numbers made sense for the $155.9 Million in Revenues that were being made by ICE.
Since I have not spoken to the company to get what is meant, I stated to consider my math faulty and move the decimals to the right one or two places. I think the same logic could apply for seeing the potential in CHNW.
Now that you mention it, I do see how you are interpreting the figure. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
v/r
Sterling
Livinginstyle, about your thoughts...
Your thoughts do hold merit, but if enough fundamental achievement is established with CHNW, those large shareholders will become even larger shareholders in my opinion. The ball is in the court of the company.
v/r
Sterling
Moneymetals, about your thoughts...
Your thoughts are very sound to say the least. Thanks for sharing them.
I think that it would further add to the cause if they would announce that they have submitted paperwork to get out of the pink sheets to a higher exchange. This kind of ties in to your 3rd event in need of taking place.
I think, like you, that CHNW presents a fair opportunity for many to research while still on the ground floor.
v/r
Sterling
Balamidas & All, with the CHNW CEO Letter...
I only got through a quarter of the CEO’s letter before I felt the need to share some thoughts. I will go back to read the rest later.
Not now, but in the near future it will be key for CHNW to be able to sell off some of their “non core” businesses. This will reduce potential dilution to fund Research and Development (R&D). A big name company sharing the same vision of the company can make things so awesome. This is why the marketing phase will be important too.
I am hoping that the beta test for the FOREX is very successful. That is where our fate resides with CHNW. If so, I think such might attract a big name company for seeing an opportunity to tap into the huge FOREX market of growth. I think major investors, companies, and Institutions are all waiting to see how this beta test for the FOREX turns out.
Here’s what I think key players involved with the maturing of CHNW sees from the geometric growth that FOREX trading offers:
As stated in the Letter to Shareholders, according to International Financial Services, London, the average daily global turnover in traditional foreign exchange market transactions totaled $2.7 trillion in April (I’m guessing they meant Apr 06). That’s 2 + 12 decimal places such as $2,700,000,000,000.
What CHNW management sees is if they only were able to get 1% of that market for April 2006, then they would have captured $27,000,000,000 (or $27 Billion) in Revenues for a 1 month time frame. Wait, let’s make this an even more extreme worse case scenario and say that CHNW only captures 1% of that 1% of that market for April 2006. That would equate to $270,000,000. Now multiply that by 12 months and that’s “potentially” $3,240,000,000 ($3.24 Billion) for an annual amount for Revenues.
Even if you consider a very much worse case scenario and figure they only capture half of that figure or .5% of that 1% from the original 1% of that FOREX trading market. That would equate to a “potential” $1.62 Billion in Annual Revenues. ($1,620,000,000)
Now let’s figure a 75% burn rate for expenses where now the $1.62 Billion in Revenues has turned into $405 Million as Net Income. Divided by a CHNW outstanding share structure of 4 Billion shares and you have something that looks like below:
$405,000,000 ÷ 4,000,000,000 = .10125 Earnings Per Share
The PE Ratio for the compatible industry is 34.50 from researching the stock ICE which trades at $149.36 per share on the NYSE. That could logically justify a CHNW stock price of .10125 EPS x 34.50 PE Ratio = $3.49 per share if we use that same industry’s PE Ratio for growth since it’s somewhat similar. A much more conservative PE Ratio would justify CHNW trading at half the above calculation given the above scenarios.
It just doesn’t seem realistic to even believe what I posted above, so please only consider it as a very slim chance of what could transpire. Don’t forget, we are still in the penny stock world where over 90% of penny stocks fail so the odds are already against us.
From scanning through ICE’s last 10K report of financials, ICE made over $155.9 Million for the period ending 31 Dec 05 which was a 43.8% increase from the $108.4 Million they made the year ending 31 Dec 04. I think people are still buying ICE even though it trades in the $149.00+ per share range because of the expected continued growth in revenues from the industry it’s in, the FOREX market. ICE traded well over $721,418,500 in dollar volume this past Friday at a price no lower than $145.15 per share so something is up with their (FOREX) market in my opinion. Their 2006 10K is due out in March 2007. We’ll check it out for growth.
I think the above calculations with CHNW are not very reasonable to expect in the near future if at all to make sure we try to keep things in perspective. CHNW will have to mature into where ICE is at now for clientele base, considering all things go as planned.
The above are only my opinions as to what I immediately saw as the potential in CHNW from reading some of the CEO Shareholder’s Letter. If the test for the FOREX trading platform turns out to be a success, then even if a mere fraction of what I posted above materializes and even if I did some bad math and is off by a decimal place or two, then the current price levels would still be considered significantly undervalued for the “potential” Revenues to be generated by CHNW in the fast growing FOREX market. These again are only my opinions.
v/r
Sterling
Samplescave…
How have you been? I hope all have been well with you. Sorry for just now seeing your post. I’ve encountered a few unexpected challenges that have thrown me behind a bit. Also, they will be shutting down the power within the next 30 minutes so my time here is very limited. I am currently having a hard time keeping up with many posts from many boards. Heck, this IHUB thing is awesome!
Right now, we are in Como-Blackout where all of our communications to call outside of our FOB have been blocked out over the past few days. I am behind on many phone calls, but please PM me your phone number and I will definitely make the time to call you.
My beliefs are as yours with CHNW. I think we have something here and I think people have enough time to do their own DD to see some things for themselves. I will try to contribute as much constructive information as possible as I can gather that might be of use. I will try to keep my thoughts to facts with references and only speculate from logical deduction. Some of your comments were of use to me in the past and I thank you for such.
v/r
Sterling
EnergymanNY, about your thoughts…
I noticed the volume a time or two going off at the bid too. It seems that if it was the company dumping, then the bids would have been wiped out a long time ago considering the amount of volume that went through. Still, it should never be overlooked. (Knock on wood.)
I do think it is very important CHNW don’t gag the TA. Transparency of the OS is a must to confirm no dumping of shares. I had not the chance to verify such from the TA. As long as the OS don’t start increasing, then I think it would be logical to consider that the huge volume “might” be the company buying back shares since there is huge volume going off at the bid with the bid maintaining its price level.
I am guessing this because Rule 10b-18 from the SEC requires that a company buy back shares at the bid. I’m a little rusty on the rules, but please review FYI…
See Section 3 Price of purchases; Parts i and iii in particular in the link below:
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/34ActRls/rule10b-18.html
See also Section 3. Price Condition, in the link below:
http://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8335.htm
Nothing much, but it would be nice if they are buying back shares and retire them back to the Treasury. If they are lining up certain contracts for their FOREX ventures as we anticipate, then they definitely know that buying back as many shares as possible at these levels is vital for enhancing its fundamental valuation. This is what the larger investors want to see if I had to guess.
I do have some other thoughts and comparisons to share that I had not the time just yet to verify before posting. I’ve been a little busy as of late, but I will make a better effort to do so in a timely manner to help people to see the potential that “might” reside here with CHNW while I think its very early with CHNW with yet a little more time.
v/r
Sterling
EngrishPetey, about your comment…
From reading one of your last comments, I have chosen to not dialogue with you. I now believe that it would be negative energy needing to be directed in support of positive energy to contribute to this forum as a shareholder. I’m sorry you and those that share your same hatred feel as you do towards me.
I will email the company or try to see if I can speak to Megas personally and share some thoughts directly with him myself for a BCIT resolution. I will share BCIT thoughts with the board as I deem necessary too. I wish you well!
v/r
Sterling
EngrishPetey, about my offer to you…
We got hit with an IED at one of our gates last night. I need to confer with one of my troops to make sure the proper procedures were done to MEDOVAC the guy out from here. I also need to see if he is still alive. I am going to need more time to organize my thoughts. Plus I have a couple of more coals in the fire.
I have not forgotten about my offer to you so please be prepared to sacrifice a few brain cells for a potential resolution to BCIT’s condition. Believe it or not, we share the same interest here and we are on the same team… like it or not. I value my integrity and when anyone challenges it, I have no problem fixing or correcting those thoughts (to include mines if I am wrong).
I am sorry about anything negative that has happened with any stock that turned out for the worst, but we have got to move forward. I had a deep passion for many stocks in the past and now because of things I believed then and now for some stocks.
This is the market and it will continue to be a rough place for many. I will continue trying to help those to become prosperous with stocks that “I believe” have potential for such. BCIT is one of them. Let’s please peacefully discuss BCIT and what is has to offer along with some possible resolutions.
v/r
Sterling
EngrishPetey, about your comments...
After it was publicly made official the amount of the share structure, I always acknowledged that we had been dumped on. Because we were still trading at such time, I thought that if we had the valuation that many of us had anticipated, there was still room for a very positive outcome. After seeing the land and drilling with my own eyes, it was hard to not think so. I really thought that CMKX was a stock for all to become prosperous. Still, who knows? Maybe Kevin can make some things happen that many are not expecting.
I am serious about having some thoughts that might help BCIT. If Megas is as far along in the process as I think you are insinuating, then it might not matter. However, who knows??? I think it wouldn't hurt to hear some of these thoughts out. I have a few of them as you might know. LOL
Hold that thought though if you are willing to have this dialogue here in front of everybody. I must depart to make sure a certain mission gets taken care of. I will return.
PS - And don't be wishing that I die or something either! LOL
v/r
Sterling
Domerfan17...
Thanks to you and all who share your same sentiments!
v/r
Sterling
Domerfan17, yes I am.(EOM)
EngrishPetey, A Huge Question...
Can I have a nice and logical dialogue with you right here, right now, after I respond to a couple of more posts.
Put your hatred behind you for a few minutes. Since you have Megas' ear, hear me out on some thoughts that could fix BCIT and logically explain to me how I am looking at things wrong or how my thoughts would not work.
I will admit that I am very rusty at the very least as I have been out of the investing/trading scene for a while. I don't even remember the few rules I use to know.
Since BCIT is not trading, it can't hurt the situation or anyone. Right? Or please correct me if I am wrong. Who knows? I might finally have some thoughts that could actually work. You think it’s worth a positive resolution for us BCIT shareholders? It just might be worth sacrificing a few brain cells.
I was told that Urban was reading my posts during the CMKX days and he was considering doing some of the things I posted. However, he didn't. We were dumped on as evident by the share structure to the tune of billions of shares. And no it wasn’t me, before you go there. Believe me, the SEC and other regulatory authorities already know. Yes, I already spoke to them so no need to go there either. No matter how much you hope for me to be guilty, I wasn’t and I am not. Please, let’s move forward.
Heck, I saw the drilling up in Canada with my own eyes. I had no idea that things would have turned out the way they did. Personally, I think things would have turned out much better with CMKX if he had done some of the theories I posted. I was at a loss like many others. Kevin is a good man and he is trying to fix things even still with CMKX, but I don't know how much he will be able to do. He has my support and he knows this as we have spoken.
I believed in those theories just like I believe in what I want you to dialogue with me about now. Would you accept this invitation for a peaceful discussion right now, right here, in front of everybody? It will never hurt my pride to be educated. Please, I ask that you humble yourself.
v/r
Sterling
007stockspy, comparing ICE vs CHNW...
Wow! I must thank you. ICE is an awesome stock trading at $142.47 per share with an OS of 57,438,998 shares. From doing a quick scan of their Balance Sheet and Income Statement, certain fundamental questions with CHNW might have already been answered.
I will go through ICE's filing to see what else I can find too to help us here understand the potential with CHNW. I must depart right now for a certain mission, and I am not sure when I will return. I will make some phone calls to ICE and CHNW come Monday and share what I find if time permits. Thanks for sharing!
v/r
Sterling
Samplescave...
Yes. This is the same Sterling. CMKX is proof that just me believing in a stock has nothing to do with its outcome. CMKX did not turn out nowhere near how I had hoped for. Hopefully CHNW has a better outcome.
v/r
Sterling
Balamidas...
Hopefully CHNW does as well as MSEP had done. If you made money on MSEP, I am happy for you. Every now and then I mention a stock that seems to do well. Believe me, I have had moments of the contrary.
v/r
Sterling
Balamidas, to answer your question…
We could be in for a short squeeze, but the company controls this more than anybody. If they are really serious about getting CHNW to .01 per share or more, the ball is in their court.
I do think that CHNW and most stocks in the penny world have been naked shorted. Many times though the company sell into runs to kill their growth and investor support. If the company lets it run and confirms more with its FOREX venture, it could be something awesome. It doesn’t trade as though the inventory of shares is zero. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a naked short position. This is where the confirmation comes into play to force any outstanding covering.
We all know the reason why stocks trade in the market is to sell shares to raise capital to grow their company. Eventually, it is hoped that enough capital is raised to create a profitable business to where selling shares is not necessary anymore to grow the company’s dream. The company can then exist from the sales generated from it business, product, or service that it offers.
If the company or supporters could exercise a bit more patience as news of substance is released, the company would need only to sell a much smaller amount of shares at much higher prices. This is the belief that must manifest from the company and its investors.
As for the 9 million block shares, I would not think that such is an indication of a stock being naked shorted. I bought a position in a stock at .0001 per share (started with a G). Later, a trusted friend told me that it was a scam. (I wasn’t smart to figure it out myself or still never confirmed such.) However, when I sold, I remember selling out at .0001 per share and reading the board and some were saying that it was the MMs naked shorting it and some were saying that it was the company dumping shares. Heck, it was me trying to break even. It was only for about 40 or 50 million shares.
CHNW has potential and I think it can be fundamentally revealed. There are a few more facts about the FOREX opportunity that I must inquiry the company about before I post how this could fundamentally benefit its shareholders as we would like. Just by the things that they have done thus far concerning their FOREX venture is enough for me to believe that they are serious. These are only my opinions though.
v/r
Sterling
Machcobra, to answer your question...
Hello Mach! It's good to be back... somewhat. I am still in Iraq. We all have so much to be appreciative for. If many only knew.
IHUB is something new to me for using on a regular basis, but due to our connections for my location, it's easier to log into IHUB rather than Raging Bull.
I am hoping that BCIT can make a turnaround and bounce back. I was surprised to see that it's still kicking (or trying).
v/r
Sterling
Dwiz5, about your comment...
Thanks for your email/post. It is greatly appreciated. Please understand though, my intentions are not to add more confusion or throw a twist into this although I have had my moments in other stocks (unintentionally). Believe me, I want this trading just as much as you!
Please understand...
BCIT most recently had done “only” a CUSIP# change and not a name change. Because of this, a new inventory of shares was not needed to be created to give to the DTC. This is what forced the DTC to use what was already electronically accounted for in their database of records. This is where I think the disparity exists between the DTC and the company.
So, to the DTC, they see that there is not a naked short position in shares as suggested by the company. The DTC sees instead a position with no errors needing correction because of the already existing electronic position of shares from the system they trust to be in tact. It never reached the step where the verification of shares by the DTC to put a new inventory of shares into our brokerage accounts had taken place because a new inventory was never created.
The new inventory of shares should have been created to mirror a new name, a new CUSIP#, and a new ticker. Just doing a CUSIP# change doesn’t create a new inventory of shares for dissemination to shareholder’s brokerages accounts. I am not sure if BCIT is aware of this. This is what I gathered from the CUSIP Service Bureau. Please call them at 212-438-6565 to please correct me if I wrong.
This is why the name change must take place too so that the new inventory of shares would be generated by the TA and sent through the CUSIP Service Bureau to the DTC. I think if this would have happened the DTC would not have ever stalled the process. These are my opinions that I have derived from talking to the CUSIP Service Bureau. This might only be a slight oversight by the company (or me), but maybe not. If there legal team call the CUSIP Service Bureau and asks some of the same questions as I did, I am confident they will get the same thing told to them as I.
Because of how it was originally done, still it could be considered that any change now would be interpreted as deceiving intentions by the company because of the time allowed to elapse for mentioning, but it be might worth a try for the company to at least look into this. I was also told that some of these things can happen in a matter of hours as opposed to days depending upon certain variables.
v/r
Sterling
With BCIT & its CUSIP# Change…
If the NASDAQ, SEC, and other regulatory authorities have already approved BCIT to trade, then the DTC would have been forced to deliver an accounting of shares and placed them in our brokerage accounts for trading if BCIT would have done a "name change" and "CUSIP # change" and not just a CUSIP# change (I think).
The DTC would have been forced to operate from a newly given inventory of shares and not from the old inventory of shares already in the system electronically. That would have forced the DTC to play the right card instead of reneging. I think this would have forced the DTC to have done the right thing.
If the company has not worked out all of the issues to resume trading up to this point, then going back to generate the “new inventory” of shares can still happen if they do the name change along with the CUSIP# change now. These are only my opinions.
v/r
Sterling
Concerning the CUSIP# Change...
I called the CUSIP Service Bureau at 212-438-6565 and spoke to a few people. The last guy I spoke to was a guy by the name of Vinnie. I am trying to get back into the swing of things with investing/trading so please verify anything I post for your own acceptance now and forever. The above phone number I got from the link below:
http://www.cusip.com/
Vinnie informed me that a CUSIP change "usually" comes with a name change, but not always. He stated that a name change will "always" come with a CUSIP# change though. He told me that the “name change” and the “CUSIP# change” starts with the company's Transfer Agent (TA) coordinating electronically with the CUSIP Service Bureau by linking the company’s name and address. Then the CUSIP Service Bureau Coordinates with the Depository Trust Company (DTC).
The DTC will serve as the overseer to coordinate with whomever as deemed necessary. Sometimes the TA will coordinate with the DTC too for certain confirmations or transactions as deemed necessary. The DTC makes sure there is proper share accountability for proper dissemination into our brokerage accounts. This is all done electronically.
After the company/TA receives their new CUSIP# from the CUSIP Service Bureau, the company/TA (& legal team) then coordinates with the NASDAQ and SEC for the already coordinated amount of shares as the new inventory. The company/TA will then coordinate with the DTC to confirm the amount of shares and other key info.
After accountability is confirmed by the DTC, the DTC then authorizes the brokerage companies to change all old CUSIP numbers to the new CUSIP numbers electronically within our brokerage accounts. A CUSIP# change is not enough from what most believe throughout the investing/trading community to force a covering of a naked shorted position in my opinion.
Personally, I think some companies don’t fully understand why it is important to do a “name change” and “CUSIP# change” if you are trying to force a covering of a naked shorted company. A ticker change wouldn’t hurt either although the guy informed me that he is not knowledgeable about ticker changes as that coordination goes through the NASDAQ and SEC with the company’s legal team.
Vinnie, from the CUSIP Service Bureau, explained it to me as when stock 1234 changes its name and CUSP# to stock 5678, the shares of stock 5678 are given to them electronically by the TA to replace stock 1234. This is the key transaction. If only a CUSIP# change transpires then a lesser type of accountability takes place. The name change matching the address of the company is what actually forces an exchange of the "old inventory" of shares to the "new inventory" of shares. Without the name change, there is NOT a “movement of shares” from the TA that takes place.
Only one phase of the accountability process is required to take place to verify accountability when only a CUSIP# change transpires because of the lack of not having a creation of the "new inventory" of shares by the company/TA. Therefore no movement of shares takes place. This is a simple misunderstanding by many companies, but if not considered, it could be the difference for any type of forced covering of any naked shorted positions.
If there is NO DILUTION, a covering of the naked shorted positions should take place due to what's revealed during the accountability process between the DTC after getting the “new inventory” of shares from the CUSIP Service Bureau if there is not only a CUSIP# change, but a name change too.
Because of the CUSIP# change, the MMs will be required to account for each of the old shares with the new shares. Because of the name change, it’s important because it forces the DTC to play a more finite role by not only accounting for the old shares to equal the new shares electronically, but forces them to match a “new inventory” of shares that have been given to them from the CUSIP Service Bureau as the new official/approved inventory by way of the shares given from the company/TA.
Hopefully this information helps investors/traders to have a better understand as to the importance of not just a CUSIP# change, but a name change too.
v/r
Sterling
Concerning the CUSIP# Change...
I called the CUSIP Service Bureau at 212-438-6565 and spoke to a few people. The last guy I spoke to was a guy by the name of Vinnie. I am trying to get back into the swing of things with investing/trading so please verify anything I post for your own acceptance now and forever. The above phone number I got from the link below:
http://www.cusip.com/
Vinnie informed me that a CUSIP change "usually" comes with a name change, but not always. He stated that a name change will "always" come with a CUSIP# change though. He told me that the “name change” and the “CUSIP# change” starts with the company's Transfer Agent (TA) coordinating electronically with the CUSIP Service Bureau by linking the company’s name and address. Then the CUSIP Service Bureau Coordinates with the Depository Trust Company (DTC).
The DTC will serve as the overseer to coordinate with whomever as deemed necessary. Sometimes the TA will coordinate with the DTC too for certain confirmations or transactions as deemed necessary. The DTC makes sure there is proper share accountability for proper dissemination into our brokerage accounts. This is all done electronically.
After the company/TA receives their new CUSIP# from the CUSIP Service Bureau, the company/TA (& legal team) then coordinates with the NASDAQ and SEC for the already coordinated amount of shares as the new inventory. The company/TA will then coordinate with the DTC to confirm the amount of shares and other key info.
After accountability is confirmed by the DTC, the DTC then authorizes the brokerage companies to change all old CUSIP numbers to the new CUSIP numbers electronically within our brokerage accounts. A CUSIP# change is not enough from what most believe throughout the investing/trading community to force a covering of a naked shorted position in my opinion.
Personally, I think some companies don’t fully understand why it is important to do a “name change” and “CUSIP# change” if you are trying to force a covering of a naked shorted company. A ticker change wouldn’t hurt either although the guy informed me that he is not knowledgeable about ticker changes as that coordination goes through the NASDAQ and SEC with the company’s legal team.
Vinnie, from the CUSIP Service Bureau, explained it to me as when stock 1234 changes its name and CUSP# to stock 5678, the shares of stock 5678 are given to them electronically by the TA to replace stock 1234. This is the key transaction. If only a CUSIP# change transpires then a lesser type of accountability takes place. The name change matching the address of the company is what actually forces an exchange of the "old inventory" of shares to the "new inventory" of shares. Without the name change, there is NOT a “movement of shares” from the TA that takes place.
Only one phase of the accountability process is required to take place to verify accountability when only a CUSIP# change transpires because of the lack of not having a creation of the "new inventory" of shares by the company/TA. Therefore no movement of shares takes place. This is a simple misunderstanding by many companies, but if not considered, it could be the difference for any type of forced covering of any naked shorted positions.
If there is NO DILUTION, a covering of the naked shorted positions should take place due to what's revealed during the accountability process between the DTC after getting the “new inventory” of shares from the CUSIP Service Bureau if there is not only a CUSIP# change, but a name change too.
Because of the CUSIP# change, the MMs will be required to account for each of the old shares with the new shares. Because of the name change, it’s important because it forces the DTC to play a more finite role by not only accounting for the old shares to equal the new shares electronically, but forces them to match a “new inventory” of shares that have been given to them from the CUSIP Service Bureau as the new official/approved inventory by way of the shares given from the company/TA.
Hopefully this information helps investors/traders to have a better understand as to the importance of not just a CUSIP# change, but a name change too.
v/r
Sterling
Strongus2006, Art2Gecko, Allspice, & All...
Thanks for the DD! I do see potential here with CHNW. You all have made my research a bit easier. Greatly appreciated!
I called the CUSIP Service Bureau yesterday to verify some old thoughts on the procedures and how such can benefit CHNW if they do a name change, cusip # change, and maybe too a ticker change. This is considering they stand-down on the dilution for a while which I think has ceased. I will also call the company and see if I can get a better understanding of the company's fundamental financial potential. After I get out of a certain meeting that I must attend, I will share those thoughts.
v/r
Sterling