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.
Binder, Lincoln was elected to a second term...after the emancipation of the slaves. He was barely into his second term when assassinated. Hard to say what would have happened after that, except that I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't have botched Reconstruction.
Anyway, thanks for your explanation. There is no doubt that lies and changed positions alter perception. Not everything deserves a press release; although I must say that the press release that mentioned the financing no longer appears to be on the CBQ website. I would have liked to check it for what it said. Maybe it is available elsewhere.
Cheers,
Da!
I agree, Gary. I wasn't attacking her, just adding a different perspective to the views she had shared.
Oops, see you already addressed pretty much the same argument, Gary. Took too long drafting my post, I guess...
Binder, I think it is a more complicated and complex matter than you make it out to be. Credibility can also be gained when you change your mind, for good reasons, about something you said that you were or weren't going to do.
For instance, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president, he had no intentions of freeing the slaves and said as much many times both before and after his election. Over time, as he wrestled with the issues and fought a war that lasted much longer than anyone had expected, his thinking on slavery evolved. He issued the Emancipation Proclamation. It was a very unpopular deed in many quarters of the country. Lincoln did not apologize for doing something that he said he wouldn't. You might say that it hurt his credibility in the short term. And yet it ultimately increased his credibility far, far more than it had ever damaged it. Why? Becausae it was the right thing to do. And the more time has passed, the more this has been proven true.
There is something to be said for not announcing things unless you intend to do them. On the other hand, we do want the company to be as forthcoming as it can about its business intentions. Is there anyone who doubts that there was a financing deal on the table that CBQ could have closed in the first quarter? If there is any evidence to substantiate that doubt, then I am very eager to learn of it, because that would certainly damage the company's credibility.
On the other hand, if the company changed its mind about signing a financing contract, had good reasons for doing so, and still found a way to close the deals for which the financing would have been used, then I say all the more power to them. To me, that demonstrates more business credibility than blundering forward into a bad contract just because you said you were going to do it.
Bix, what you have posted does not substantiate anything. Just because the Softeon website claims those companies as clients does not mean that they are not/will not be CBQI clients via the Technet or Networkland asset acquisition.
Is that what you're basing your statements on? Or have you substantiated in some other way that CBQI will have no work with those clients.
Don't get me wrong. I do appreciate all of your efforts here. You're working hard, but need to work harder, harder, harder. I'm counting on you, Bix.
Bix, you may be right about that. Time will tell. But that is different than being right in your earlier statement regarding the run rate. Don't get wrapped around the axle of being "right". Just work harder, harder, harder at getting the stock price down, because my buy order is ready down there.
I actually feel that Bix and deva and their ilk serve a useful purpose here. They raise questions, whether they be misleading or not, and when these questions are respoded to appropriately there is a useful information exchange that facilitates further DD by existing an/or prospective investors.
Besides, they can be pretty funny at times, in all their earnest effort.
Bix, you seem to misunderstand what an annualized revenue run rate is. If you claim that the CBQI top line will not reach $27M, that does not negate the press release statement you quoted and challenged. Maybe you still are a schoolboy...
Who is posting under this alias here? The person who met the Georgia Bard a couple of weeks ago? Something smells very fishy...
Happy Easter to you, Gary, and all others invested in this high-growth company!
I'm just checking in during a brief stopover at home for the Easter holiday. Will be back to check things out in a week.
look forward to that booklet, Gary! Say hello to Bart for me on the 20th and give him my regrets. Tell him he's doing a great job. I will try to make it to DC in the coming months to hook up with him if he has time.
Da!
Bix, you said, "Determine the degree of dilution shareholders will experiance with the purchase of a $15 million dollars of reveunue generation machine and we can calculate the future affect on share price."
I would certainly like to see your attempt at making that calculation. And then I would be just as interested to see how it matched up with reality.
Personally, I am not one who agrees that such a calculation will generate a trustworthy result when it comes to "future affect on share price." But I am not one to stand in your way should you wish to make the attempt. Like I said, I will enjoy watching it.
I'm afraid I'm not sure what you're saying there, Bix, when you use the word "thrash" so I can't be sure what you're agreeing with.
What I was saying was that CBQI has attempted to take its hit for past deals in 2000 so that the financials in 2001 will not be burdened with these costs. It is my opinion that this will mean that CBQ's performance in 2001 will be stronger than if they had not taken these measures. Of course, that means the 2000 10KSB will not paint a rosy financial picture for last year.
As for dilution, Bix, we have been told in one PR regarding the EasySoft acquisition that it was non-dilutive. We have not been told that re the last two, so we may look forward to learning more about the specifics of those deals. (That's not to say we shouldn't look forward to the specifics of the EasySoft deal. It will be interesting to see how it was structured.)
Bix, if you read the press release I posted a link to, you will see that CBQ was writing off its discontinued operations in Reliance and Tophernet. That's part of the cleaning up that is going on. Gary has mentioned the raionale for this a number of times. They are taking the hit in 2000, so that they can begin 2001 without all of the ballast. I suspect that the performing subsidiaries will be Quantum plus the three companies announced the last few weeks, plus any additional acquisitions. Over time, Gary has told us that these will probably be integrated into one company, thus they will not be subsidiaries per se.
Bix, at the time of that press release, I believe that Quantum Technology Group represented the majority of CBQ's revenue-producing operations. I may be mistaken, but I believe that CBQ was at that time in the process of cleaning out its non-producing subsidiaries. They still had hopes for the potential of Chinasoft, but I believe that they may now utilize EasySoft for their Chinese software outsourcing instead. We will need to see that confirmed, but I suspect that that avenue has greater potential for two reasons: a better cost structure and the English language capabilities of EasySoft's staff.
Bix, you missed it, then:
http://www.cbq.com/nr/2000/121100.html
Excerpt from third paragraph in above release:
"Certain losses suffered by Quantum Technology Group resulted from discontinued operations in the electronics division, the insurance service division, and the retail service and repair divisions, all of which were non-core businesses. Quantum Technology Group, the core business continuing operations, had income in the third quarter of 4% on an EBITDA basis."
This article is at least a year and a half old. Probably Sept.-Oct. 1999.
Bix, you raise an interesting point. There are some who will sit on the sidelines after doing their DD, waiting for the price to break through a difficult resistance point before they commit themselves. Phantom was posting those resistance points on Raging Bull at one point. I believe one of them was at .34, then .51, with the key reveral point at .78.
Obviously, we have a ways to go to get to the key reversal point. Of course, if the market turns and the 10K comes out to reveal strong promise, we could be there sooner than feels possible at the moment.
Nevertheless, your point is a good one.
Gary, you're doing just as you should. And Ray is clearly doing a superlative job as well. All I'm trying to do is learn and discuss what I can. I'm hoping that more and more eyes will be coming through here to check this out.
Bix, I thought in another post Gary mentioned that it looked like he might not be able to come up with the AP details...
The reverse merger is the only way I could think of. I don't know the details of the process, because I have never been invested in a company that tried it. I understand that there is still red tape involved, but that it can be a much more accelerated process (depending on circumstances, of course). You're right, pulling together a deal like that can take time. But who knows? Maybe the negotiations have already been ongoing. We'll just have to see what ensues.
Yes, it does, Gary. It does, indeed.
Gary, another question:
This one is theoretical. How many ways do you know of that a company can gain a listing on an exchange such as Nasdaq or Amex within a couple of months?
I'm talking about getting on the exchange. Not just applying to do so. Actually, getting listed and begin being traded there.
Thanks, Gary. Yes, I passed along some of those links, as well.
Another question I have centers around the matter of post-merge integration (which was also touched on in the news article yesterday). What is the intention with these acquisitions? Is the intention to integrate them into one entity under the CBQ Inc. brand? Or to keep them as separate brands and fairly autonomous entities whose finances would be carried down to one CBQ bottom line?
Gary, CBQ clearly has a good game plan and is executing it well.
As this becomes more public, it would be helpful if their website underwent a thorough updating. It is hard to pass along info and refer people to a website that is woefully out of date.
I understand that much is changing, and so the update is hard to do until news is publicly announced. Still, it's time.
I don't think I'm saying anything new here.
A question: do you expect that the 10K will include any information about EasySoft's revenue picture. I assume it wouldn't. I also assume that we may not see anything in the next 10Q, unless the deal is retroactive to Q1.
22% profit margin! That ain't exactly shabby.
As a matter of fact, I guess it may have to become a matter of principle not to sell investment stocks from mid-February through mid-April. I thought this year might be different with all of the selling to capture losses at the end of the year. But it hasn't worked out that way.
Bix, your story illustrates exactly why I believe this market won't rebound until the week of the 16th at the earliest. This tax time selloff is a shorters paradise for the third year running.
Amex Listing Guidelines at this link:
http://www.amex.com/about/amex_listus.stm
Exactly, Gary. I was going to make the same point. Institutional buyers want a large float and shares out. They want to be able to buy and sell large positions without driving the market haywire. A reverse split in order to achieve a listing-eligible stock price would be self defeating for that as well as the many other reasons we all know about.
Spread is .16 x .25. Now, if you think that is frustrating to us, just think how frustrating it must be to our shorter.
Nice! This virtual engineering concept is one that a lot of global companies have been talking about and attempting to do. I'm glad to hear that CBQ is involved in a cutting-edge project of this caliber with a client like Daimler Chrysler. When it comes time to tell prospective clients about the work you're doing, it doesn't get much better than that.
Monkeytaco, Whizz just likes to jerk peoples' chains. I'm not interested in him anymore. He can say whatever he likes, as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe he'll entertain us some more by talking about his <<<<<Certified Black Belt>>>>>>.
Gary, can you give us an estimate of EasySoft's 2000 revenues? Or is that off the record?
Speaking of "more in the release" the name Daimler Chrysler really jumped out from that impressive client list.
Do you know anything about that work? I have peripherally been involved in planning for a HUGE Supply Chain Optimization project that Daimler Chrysler is working on. Do you know whether Technet's work for them is involved in that project?
There is also this auto parts exchange being built by the Big Three...name of Covisint...that may be related to that Daimler project.
Through the acquisition of EasySoft and Technet, CBQ has acquired the following list of clients:
Automotive
Daimler Chrysler
Consumer Products
L'Oreal Hair Care Division
Financial Services
ABN AMRO
American Stock Transfer
Freddie Mac
Electronics/Computers
Acer Group
Palm Companies
Samsung
Solectron
Engineering/Construction
Brown & Root Services
Government Agencies
World Bank
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
State of Tennessee
State of Florida
State of Montana
State of North Carolina
State of Maryland
State of Louisiana
News Media
People's Daily
The Washington Post
Telecommunications
Verizon Global Networks
Yupi Internet
GARY!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is just what we needed!!
Last November, I talked to Bart about the need to acquire expertise in overseas software outsourcing. I also spoke to you about it once you had become IR. I imagine you had to bite your tongue a bit at that time.
Dr. Rashok Attehali appears to have this expertise and then some. We now have built the Silicon Triangle!!! LOL
The sales/distribution/integration point is in the U.S. Stretching from that point are two pipelines into India and China: Technet and EasySoft. These two connected are connected along the base of the triangle by CBQ's English-speaking programming professionals in both countries, as facilitated by Drs. Rashok Rattehali and Wei Sun, CEOs of Technet and EasySoft respectively.
We now have leaders who understand how to operate a software outsourcing business. We have a CEO at CBQ who understands how to turn a vision into reality. Things are looking very, very promising, indeed.
With all due respect, Gary, forget the China Bridge. CBQ has built the Silicon Triangle!
INFY up 8+ today.
Comparison of INFY and CBQI
Is INFY overvalued, or is CBQI undervalued? And how much will that overvalue/undervalue balance change when EasySoft is included in the equation? If yet another acquisition is included?
INFY stock price: 61.25
CBQI stock price: 0.185
INFY 9 mo. revenue '00: $293.2M
CBQI 9 mo. revenue '00: $ 7.8M*
CBQI share price as percent of INFY share price: 0.3%
CBQI revenues as percent of INFY revenues: 2.67%
INFY shares out.: 132,310,000
CBQI shares out.: 69,950,000
INFY float: 91,200,000
CBQI float: 44,800,000
INFY # employees: 5390
CBQI # employees: 40*
INFY sales/employee: $ 66,182
CBQI sales/employee: $202,050
* Not including EasySoft