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.
You said $ 23.5 Million.
I'll hold you to it. Although, I wouldn't blame you for backing off that number.
Bix
Gary
This is not "off-topic." It's legit shareholder concern.
First, Other than the initial press releases, when did CBQI state it had closed on 100% of the sales contracts/agreements? I only saw the initial press releases. If their are more "public" statements, I have not seen them.
Second,if there were no additional statments, why should I take your word for it? Your not exactly balanced in your coverage of CBQI. Time will show how much business CBQI lost to Softeon. Do you honestly think Softeon is sitting back "letting" the business "slip away"? CBQI has compettion for the 15 million. Plain and simple.
You went on record stating the company would generate 23.5 in revs for 2001. Be mule-headed over this. I can wait 8 months to show you I'm right.
Bix
JB
Don't you find it a bit irresponsible to advertise that you are expecting revenues from the purchase of SOCT assets which in fact consist of business stolen from the Technet by Softeon?
If someone goes on the record as CBQI has by asserting it intends to secure 100% of all prior year sales, shareholders have the right to expect that will happen. The fact is, CBQI jumped the gun and reported its annual run rate without first verifying that they will close on some high dollar accounts (i.e. Chrysler Account).
Softeon is a software development firm focused on e-commerce, supply chain management, call center and financial management software. Its clients include L'Oréal, Lancôme, Chrysler, AST StockPlan and The World Bank. For further information contact A Fathi at (703) 356-8727.
http://www.softeon.com/pr_051000b.html
Tell me how CBQI can expect to keep an account that Softeon already stole. No one has explained that to me. I do not think it is responsible to advertise you have 100% of the business when you do not. Do you?
If you disagree then you are advocating the practice of disclosing dishonest information. Credibility may or may not matter to most, but it does to some.
Agree or not, I am right.
No way will CBQI see 27 Mill in revenues for 2001.
Time will judge me.
Ahhh, I see where your going.
SO your saying CBQI will end up with revenues of $23.25M ?
When I say CBQI will NOT end up with $ 27M of revenues in 2001, is it safe for me to say you aggree? (Excluding New Acquisitions)
If so, that is what I am right about. : )
Bix
I cant figure out what Gary does not understand,
Here is the press release statement:
"These synergistic acquisitions will provide management efficiencies, economies of scale, and a broader reach into the mid-Atlantic region. In 2000 EasySoft, Technet and Networkland accounted for over $15 million in gross revenues, placing CBQ annualized revenue run rate for 2001 of $27 million."
Here is my statement: That will not happen.
To hit 27M, CBQI must have revs of $ 11M by 06/30/01. Then it must generate additional $16M in last two quarters. Lets see what happens on the second quarter.
Yes...
Thats because Gary ate Lobster...
I must be CBQI's only vocally disappointed investor in this group. All you happy people make me wonder if you paid cash.
I'm waiting for the Earnings reports from 2nd quarter 2001. Thats the test quarter for me. If that quarter goes green. We have good reason to trust the speculators. If not... Then I for one plan do demand an explanation. If CBQI has 27M run rate there can be no excuses not to be Green.
Anyway, for the time being, I am done with expressing pessimism. Seen some bold statements by management and read some nice press releases. I've posted my oppinions about some of them. Time will judge this stock better than Gary, Bart, Sid, or myself can.
You want speculation, heres my speculation. I think shareholders can buy this stock up to $ 5.00(Providing no one sells). Its a low volume stock that could see some easy appreciation if existing shareholders add to thier positions. IF not, I think we sit here till CBQI goes green.
I'm done with this for now. Lets see what happens. No since in speculating how wrong your speculation will be.
FACT # 2
CBQI did not post that it acquired the sales contracts. It is insuating it has the ability to generate the same revs while beating around the bush on the facts. Fact is, Dr. Ratolli has to compete with the operation next door. They have the majority of the staff responsible for generating these sales contracts, not CBQI.
We get the man who has been President of Technet and Networkland for less than one month(Dr. Ratolli). This same man apparently stands accused of criminal misconduct. Granted, he is innocent till proven guilty. But, do you honestly beleive that he will successfully compete for the business? While defending criminal charges?
It is wrong to pait a pretty picture of this scenario. IMHO, We will be lucky to see 3 million of the 15 million in revs.
RE: "Dicontinued Opperations"
SEC Filings:
2) I find the failure of Mr. Fred Sajedi to provide the Board with a written plan for reorganizing Networkland and Technet, and for expanding their revenues, to be unacceptable, especially in light of repeated requests by the Board. Nor have I seen any evidence to date of actual successful efforts on his part to
expand such revenues. In fact, the very opposite appears to be happening in that his behavior is alienating and driving off staff at Technet, therefore reducing the future possible revenues that could be generated at that company.
http://www.FreeEdgar.com/search/ViewFilings.asp?CIK=937603&Directory=1019687&Year=01&SEC...
FACT # 1
At no time has CBQI disclosed that shareholders should expect 15M in additional revenues from Technet and Networkland.
Those revenues are in the office next door to Technet and Networkland. Only your speculation and that of your followers suggest otherwise. Here is where I beleive the revs will go:
SOCT SHAREHOLDER POST ON RB:
"Govind's departure terms with SOCT were quite generous in terms of non-compete provisions--there basically weren't any. The majority of Technet's programmers and client base thus eventually moved over to Softeon."
Suggesting otherwise?
I have JB on ignore at RB
If he wants me to answer, Gary will have to let me do it here.
POINT BY POINT: PROOF:
"I do not know where you got the 13M from on SOCT and that has nothing to do with CBQI. However, I do have the evaulation for $15M annual revenue run rate from the assets. You have nothing but twisted logic and twisted spin on things you can not prove."
SOCT BALANCE SHEET. IT DISCLOSED THAT THE 13M was earned from Technet and Networkland (Its sole subsidiaries) by consolidating .
"Oh I am going to respond to your posts as I have before and making you look idiotic is too easy."
You tie my hands and ask me to refute your posts.. I'll refute you on Raging Bull. At least there, my posts wont get deleted.
"You do not deal in facts only innuendoes where I have no choice and duty to be honest and forthright."
FACT - You are the one advising shareholders they can expect to see additional 13M on CBQI 2001 financials. Just like you were the one who tried to get everyone beleiving CBQI has positive earnings (4% EBITA). You were wrong then and your wrong now.
FACT - CBQI has not disclosed that it purchased SOCT contracts.
"You can try to link to CBQI to whatever criminal activity or bad scenario you want."
FACT - I dont try to do anything. CBQI will stand on its own merrits. If it is engaged in unethical activity concerning the theft of SOCT contracts, I am unaware of it. Furthermore, I have never insinuated it has plans to do so. However, if CBQI hires Dr. Ratolli, they hired someone with existing legal problems and potentially crimial past. CBQI can do better. Link Below
"It is quite apparent you do not know anything about mergers and acquisitions nor financial filings and to date you have never proven one item of your twisted concern."
This is becomming an obsessive accusation. Here is my "one item" I am proving to you.
FACT - EARNINGS REMAIN NEGATIVE.
Dr. Rahtolli Legal problems.
http://www.tdi.state.tx.us/commish/nr12050a.html
CRIMINAL ACTIVITY CLAIM?
On You?
I dont have the time waist on a criminal complaint. If you have a criminal complaint filed against you, it was done by another shareholder. You may be the ultimate hypester, but I don't think your a criminal Gary.
As far as proof. The 10K is the only proof I need. I'm not anti-CBQI. I'm anti-hype. The company has potential. But so many of you so-called shareholders could care less about profits. It makes it a Cinderella story.
You keep focused on the Hype. I'll keep focused on the facts. Fact#1-CBQI will not see the 13 million from SOCT. I think you know that. Your asking me to proove it so you don't have to acknowledge it. The 10K is already prooving my points Gary. Considering my conservative expectations, I trust it will continue to do so.
I am perfectly content with the knowledge that your waisting your own time deleting my posts.
PART 2
In response to nohoper's post. I do not know who Georgia Bard is and what her affiliation with CBQI is, but there seem to be a few conflicts in her post and the company filings.
1. [CBQI did not buy those companies. CBQI bought certain assets and assumed certain liabilities from two of Socrates' Subsidaries Networkland & Technet as per the news release.] From the news release: [CBQI announced today that it has acquired "substantially all the assets" of Technet Computer Services Inc., Tysons Corners, VA and Networkland Inc., Rosslyn, VA. "Dosen't sound to me like certain assets". This is from the recent quarterly filing: Section 14. Going concerns
[The acquisitions of Easysoft and Technet will strengthen the software capabilities of CBQ......] When you acquire a company don't you get everything?
All this irrelevant since SUCT is denying any acknowledgment of this deal. If they did given the circumstances around Dr. Rat's and "Curly's behind-the-back deal, will some lawyer's and the SEC have a little surprise for someone.
2. [But Rattahali has resigned from Socrates and the certificate for the certain assets (Such as the names Networkland and Technet)have been delivered and all documents have been signed sealed and delivered plus CBQI has made full disclosure of the asset acquisition.] Just a question but who signed sealed and delivered these items? Dr Rat an new employee of CBQI? Rattahali has resigned from SOCT? Nothing again has been released from SUCT so how did Georgia get this insider information? What disclosure by CBQI of the acquisition? If they only bought certain assets and liabilities what are they? Did they assume all of SUCT's massive debt, or did Dr. Rat only take the things of value with him?
Enough for tonight, but there should be some interesting things developing over the next few weeks. IMO its about time for some criminal charges finally being brought forward here.
Bixmann
I have been posting on this and the Yahoo board for over five years now. I have for all general purposes tried to be as concise and pertinent to the facts as possible. I wish I could take the time to give you a complete history of the lies, scams, fraud, and criminal element that has been associated with MVSI/SOCT. This company has changed leadership and BOD members more often than some people change their underware. However, I am going to try to limit this post to the general concerns and activities currently transpiring.
As to the future potential of Networkland and Technet. I believe the link to the SEC filing I presented earlier, including the letters from two recently departed BOD members tells it all. Both these individuals are reputable professionals and were only acting BOD members for a few months with access to inside information. They were not on the company payroll and have absolutely no reason to present false information. I feel certain these people issued these statement to protect themselves from any liabilities that may come to light from the behind-the-back dealing that were transpiring. "It should also be noted that these letters were not released at the time the company advised shareholders of mass BOD resignations." They were only filed just prior to Sajedi's firing by Dr. Rat and "Curly" Keller (the only two remaining BOD members and company officers). In the original filing the company also advised of their initiative to replace these departing members, which obviously turned out to be just another of many, many false statements.
I brief history on Fred Sajedi. He was the founder and CEO of Networkland. I guess you can say he was Networkland. He was also the largest management shareholder with 1,300,000 shares plus or minus. He was the company President and CEO up too a few weeks ago.
A little history on Dr. Rat. He has only been associated with this company for approximately 6 months. He was appointed the Chairman of the BOD by company officers (if that is what you want to call them) at that time. He was then promoted (most likely by himself) as company President a few weeks ago. In the press release on Thursday April 5, 2001 by CBQI they state [Technet Computer Services, Inc. under the leadership of Dr. Ashok Rattehali, is a leading software programming and development company based in Tysons Corner, Virginia, which employs 25 seasoned software development professionals.] What they don't say is Dr. Rat appointed himself to the leadership role only a week or so before the release, and that the 25 seasoned professional are mostly Indian immigrants here on work visa's. If you read a few of the previous posts it will give you a little more insight into Dr. Rat's history. Also it should be noted that Dr. Rat only owned 1,000 shares that were given to him.
What I find to be criminal here is. Dr. Rat who apparently has no vested interest in this company. Teams up with his pal "Curly" Keller ( the last of the three stooges) who also only own only a small percentage of stock, appoints himself supreme ruler, fires the the President and major shareholder of the company. Within a few days enters into an agreement with CBQI to basically "give-away" anything of value within the company. Then secures a plush job with CBQI and resigns from SOCT. This now leaves "Curly" Keller (the only person left) with 7,650,000 shares of CBQI stock and $700,000 in cash. Everyone here knows "Curly's" only reason for being here is to insure his debenture holders get their 3.5 million dollars that he recieved a huge commission for securing the loan.
This still does not explain why [as I have been told by two different people] the company is denying that CBQI has acquired anything from Socrates. And if they did who authorized this sale, how does it benefit shareholders, and if CBQI did purchase assets why has SOCT refused to release this information.
Where is Fred Sajedi?
ONE LAST POINT
SOCT generated the 13 million from consolidation and restructuring of the Company's hardware reseller business.
This is not exactly the type of sales derived from outsourcing software.
POSTING LIES?
How about posting legit questions concerning legit transactions!
How much revs can CBQI honestly expect from these purchases?
I'm finding more speculation than verfiable facts when people try to answer that question.
To say CBQI can generate the revs generated by Networkland and Technet simply because they bought the tires is stretching the truth. Lets get real.
What is the real answer? No way will CBQI get 100% of that pie. SOCT's Revs have been on the decline since 1997. Assume CBQI walks away with 25% of the pie on remaining software contracts from Networkland and Technet. Assume the current trend of declining revenues continues (-26% link below) Project the decline on line a graph to end of 2001. Were talking an additional 2.4 Milion in "declining" sales before charging cost of operations and factoring in purchase price.
That is far from the 13 million everyone is posting. Who's fibbing who?
http://yahoo.marketguide.com/mgi/SNAP.asp?nss=yahoo&rt=snap&rn=A1388
Whiz
One thing you can be sure of. The U.S. Senate will not allow the PNTR to revoked. This incident is too minor to affect trade relations. If the U.S. wanted to turn this into an international crisis, it would have already done so.
The Chinese were looking for concessions from the Bush Administration for insults made during the Bush campaign. China got ticked when Bush said he viewed them as a "competitor" rather than a partner.
If this crash happened when Clinton was in office, the soldiers would have been released in 24 hours.
IMHO, The balance sheet will have a larger affect on CBQI.
Bix
I just hope the "soft vision" begins to yield fruit on the balance sheet by 90 days ending June 30,2001.
It would be nice if the quarterly for that period came out on time.
Bix
Nice Perception
RE: What do you think could happen to stock prices?
I have no doubt that Company B would do better in the long run. Sid, I do not think your oppinions to be too far off target. In the end the company will arrive. I simply do not agree with those who act as CBQI has already done so.
Without earnings, all we have is speculation that management can keep its promises. So far it has survived multiple failures. Granted, that to me is more valuable than a company who succeeds at round one becuase it demonstrates the organization's ability to overcome adversity (of which there is plenty). That does not mean we should ignore previous failed plans.
If you were to say to me, Don't worry, CBQI will be green in two years, I am going to say, IMHO, we will not make it past the first bankruptcy hearing without first seeing the market price of this stock droping to one tenth of one cent. On the other hand, if you say, CBQI goes positive for a portion of 2001 then I am voting it will survive long enough to provide management with an opportunity to deliver the promises that are being made.
I am not a basher. I am judging this stock with a dash of conservative reality. Tired of seeing excuses for deprecation when we don't even get press releases explaining the degree of dilution. IMHO, CBQI was over valued in early last year. Here is an article about CBQI discovered on the web. It confirms my oppinion:
-------------------
Written Last YEAR.
CBQ, Inc. is a development stage full service internet company, which specializes in developing, implementing and maintaining creative business Web sites, Intranets, Commerce sites, and Database Development. CBQI also operates three vertical marketplace web sites.
Just having began operations in Q4 1998, this company's future seems speculative- based more on expectations and future promises by management than by historical actions to take as evidence. John Harris, CEO, sees the embedded device industry as an opportunity for Internet service providers. CBQ hopes to benefit by offering the device manufacturer a one-stop resource for managing and deploying secure access for their devices. Of special interest, CBQ's wholly owned subsidiary ChinaSoft may give this company a huge market advantage as Harris states that 'China is estimated to have the worlds largest Internet market by 2005, and now the worlds third-largest market for cellular telephone.'
CBQ's Internet division, EmbeddedISP.com, will focus on bundling access for embedded Internet devices and providing custom integration services for the emerging Internet appliance industry. Currently, CBQ is in discussion with two manufacturers of Internet appliances and is actively seeking additional service bundling opportunities. Dialup service is available on a trial basis in the Dallas/Ft. Worth area and wireless access is expected to be available by the end of the first quarter. CBQ will also market this service to the growing Chinese market through its subsidiary Chinasoft, Inc.
This company's Price to Book is outrageous at 1800, and its price to sales of almost500 is not much better. Revenues for the first three quarters of 1999 missed the half million dollar mark. This company is clearly infantile and perhaps greatly over-valued with a market capitalization of $260 million. In its favor, Gross Margins are 75% and the company has relatively little debt. This company requires strong revenue growth which is dependent on the management's ability to deliver on its promises.
For more background information please see the industry report: Networking Every Day Life
This report was created by Mark Little: m.little@lse.ac.uk
___________
EUROPEANS POINT OF VIEW>
I care more about how the stock performs and less about how it looks. Action is better than press.
No Con Oldblue. I actually like this investment. I'm just tired of watching all the hype and seeing no results.
Bixmann is relatively new allias, but I've been here for over a year. I started posting on RagingBull as Despy and was invited to leave when I posted a link to a start up investment for an acquaintance who was starting a new company.
Ragingbull considered the post spam (In part because I posted it on about 20 boards), and deleted my posts. There's no conspiracy. I am not hiding previous posts and could care less who thinks I'm a basher. Unlike Gary, I have no ties to CBQI and hence... nothing to loose other than my principal investment(wich is down 99%).
Hopefully, CBQI will turn green by 90 days ending June 30,2001 and my mission of getting folks to realize that earnings are every bit as important as having a business plan(CPM)will be complete. Until then, I'll keep "hoping" like the rest of you.
Bix
SOME "Earnings Logic:"
Consider dealer manipulation or supply and demand as two variables that can affect stock price both synergisticly or independant from one another(you can have one without the other).
Positive Earnings, the resulting capital gains, and higher yields attract investors out of bond markets and other safe investments that offer a return on equity(more P/E more buyers).
Think about the impact that surplus buyers have on a stock's market price.
Consider all the above and combine with CBQI's existing intrensic values.
Compare the above with what we have now. Will earnings make a difference?
Show me da money!
WELL GARY,
I am trying to be polite with you and you continue to make personal attacks on me while dodging my questions.
Actions speak louder than words. Flaming me is in no way comparable to me stating obvious facts that you refute. The bull drove CBQI to the roof w/no Earnings. Earnings remained negative. Stock Dropps 99%. You wanna flame me for saying it? Fine. That does not change the fact that I have been telling the truth.
Who is really posting falsehoods? You were the one who posted 4% EBITA. You know as well as anyone that CBQI has never had a 4% EBITA. All the PR in the world won't change that. Argueing about this online is no longer appropriate. If you have the facts to prove me wrong, then do it.
I would rather be wrong and loaded than right and light. Stop misconsturing my posts Gary. I am not being sarcastic, I am being sincere. This stock has hurt many investors. I don't beleive you cant fix it any more than I beleive your at fault for it.
Bix
Ok Gary,
Your choice. Not mine.
You can paint whatever picture of me or CBQI that you wish. My disappointment with the lack of progress is not unwarranted.
You can disagree with me and say that CBQI was deflated for other reasons that I am aware of (when I am not).
The major reason CBQI lost value or deflated is no secret. It was overvalued with the rest of just about every other stock in the market. It has very little to do with manipulation and everything to do with the fact that no one outside of the board is buying. Its run to 16, IMHO, was an unearned result of the bear market. Not a big deal if looked at in context.
I find it ironic that you publicly question my integrity Gary. I volunteer information to you in confidence. You betray my trust, post distorted facts, and question my integrity? This wouldn’t have anything to do with “impression management” would it?
Bix
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.
Twist Things?
I'm seeing a completely differant picture of this company than you are posting. Its not as though the picture I'm seeing is a terrible investment, but it has a history of failed ventures. It does not matter when the failures occured. The only thing that matters to me is that these failures directly affect me as a shareholder. That is the reason I am not quick to trust this board as reliable source of information. I've already made that mistake twice.
The fact is CBQI bought some lemmons. No big deal. I accept that. Let's find justice and push the company to move on with aggressive disclosure of relevant facts. Why won't CBQI disclose the dillution questions? This is very relevant information. It certainly stands to reason that each investor here has the right to know the information that management knows which will affect the market price of this stock.
Now as to the question: Why buy stock directly from the company? Simple. I could not buy the shares I'd like to accumulate by the time the market begins to march without impacting the price of the stock. No big secret.
Bix
Nice Post Whiz..
I feel your pain. I am so close to backing up the truck here but recently decided to wait for the correction that will come when the dilution is disclosed.
As I've said before, I have a method to my madness, and I'm sure in the end I will be happy for persistantly asking questions.
Gary told me in a nut shell that I failed to to do enough DD on CBQI when I bought in at 9.00 and averaged down at 4.00. Talk about your negative comments. Now I'm doing DD and asking questions, and am being called a negative minded newbie and stand accused of shorting. I honestly wish I did short this stock! Would have made a ton of money if I did.
I completely agree with your points regarding the lack of buying. If this deal is so great, then why don't we see the 144s buying in at these prices? Where is the buying from the longs? Eveyone here has seems to have some relationship with CBQI. Why don't they beleive?
I'd like to look at the hard core specifics... What does the AP consist of? How much will operating expenses increase with the addition of the three recent acquisitions? What is the increas in "gross" revenue and will it be greator than gross "AP."
Lets stop talking up the theories or criticizing each other and look into the details? The devil is in the details. The Positive side is this: "IF" the CPM holds water, we'll all be happy in the long run. Start trying to figure out when the "long run" will come to pass. No harm in that.
Sincerely,
Bix
Gary,
The only thing I am guilty of is in trusting the acqusitions made in March of last year were good solid management decisions.
You have admitted that they were not. In your own words.. "It was a waist." Therefore, why should I rush to the conclusion that the acquisitions made this year will prove any different.
Its the overall track record that I am focused on and not the track record that beagan with the purchase of Easysoft.
Gary,
Short Term or not, I really to know the net affect of this decision now.
Bix
Would CBQI consider selling shares directly to shareholder?
Gary,
With respect to our telephone conversation, what type of "broker support agreement" are we talking about?
Confucious Say: "Dont kill mosquito with cannon."
Bix
WOW!
I step away for an hour or five and I'm flooded with questions.
Da, I mean trash.. As in go ahead and take the charge offs in 2000. I agree with Gary 100% on that idea. I'd even support a management decision to pay future depreciation and amortization expenses just to get it down to cash flow accounting for 2001(Assuming GAAP Allows). Just so were communicating effectively, I am trying to identify the bottom as quickly and accurately as possible. I don't care where it is. I just want the information required to draw reliable conclusions. The information exists, but is not completely disclosed.
Zep; unlike some, I believe it is reasonable to expect an OTC to generate positive earnings. I also believe earnings will affect this stock's price (negative or positive). One point I agree with Gary on is the long term projection. We do not necessarily agree on some of the reasons for the decline in the stock price (Although this is not entirely relevant). Manipulation is not the only reason that stocks decline in a shorter's paradise. Forgive me for being winded, I am not sure what explanation you are looking for with respect to the former. Perhaps you could be specific.
Da, again, for the purpose of identifying the bottom, dilution is a reasonable explanation for decline in stock price. One example of dilution is seen when a stock splits. Another example is found when one evaluates CBQI's Balance sheet. Look at the number of shares outstanding and compare 9/99 to 9/00. Click the link below. Notice the increase?
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/research/financials_bs.gsp?s=CBQI
The EPS ratio is based on Earnings and outstanding shares. If CBQI dilutes outstanding shares by 300% it is perfectly logical to expect the stock's price to be adversely affected. In the above example, you can see that earnings would have to be split with three times as many shareholders. Therefore, the stock's market price can be expected to drop to 1/3 of its previous value within that time period and increase by acquisition's yields on earnings/profits. The basis for my argument was: "If CBQI issued additional shares of stock to pay for recent acquisitions, then shareholders' existing positions will decrease in value in relationship to the following variables (a) number of additional shares and (b)current market prices." CBQI did not disclose these numbers in its press release. Unfortunately, it is impossible to calculate adverse affects without knowing how much the company paid. Hence, my reason for asking. This information will have to be disclosed eventually. My preference as a shareholder is, be straight with me, disclose sooner rather than later. That way, the market can make any necessary adjustment on the stock price today and Bix does not have to speculate on "future affects."
Gary, I just hope the supply can accommodate my demand. Your point is taken to heart (RE: Anticipation of Green). I will not pretend to comprehend a 10th of what you posted. I had too much wine with my dinner to give your post the attention it deserves. I did read it and completely agree with the portions that I was able to follow. Some parts look like CBQI’s Chinese programmers wrote them. No Offense.
I was able to follow your synopsis in theory but do not recognize all the terms. I am not a complicated investor. I am looking for specific information to help me determine if CBQI's ASP (Anticipated Stock Price) conforms to my existing risk tolerance. I agree "IF" things happen in accordance with CBQI's current CPM (Critical Path Method)then the market can be expected to smile on shareholders who take positions at today’s prices.
While MBAR (Market Based Accounting Research) concludes that ASP drives current market price, we have not seen conclusive management reports to assure positive ASP, in the short-term. Specifically, management's decision to limit disclosure of dilution factors talked about earlier in this post will inevitably impact market price. Sooner or later, details of CBQI's payment terms will be disclosed allowing market price correction. Short-term gains will be offset leaving only one casualty, investor sentiment, with no individual benefactor.
It is for these reasons that I believe expectations of economic rebound (in the overall market) will undoubtedly become the sole driving force to increase CBQI's stock price.
There is no advantage to delay disclosure of material information. Doing so unnecessarily sacrifices much needed investor sentiment which reduces organizational integrity and raises the question... Do I want to buy into this waterfall?
Sincerely,
Bix
Gary,
There is a method to my madness.
Bix
I agree, CBQI should thrash 2001. But I am not optimistic that the thrashing will not affect stock price.
Bix
Da,
Yes.. all good points. and you failed to point out that many of the initial acquisitions(prior to Easysoft) possessed little or no income generating devisions when compared to current acquisitions.
For that we were diluted by almost 300%. Determine the degree of dilution shareholders will experiance with the purchase of a $15 million dollars of reveunue generating machine and we can calculate the future affect on share price.
Bix.
Thanks Da,
Stopped reading that artical when I got to the point where it said: "the net loss from overall continuing operations of CBQ, Inc. for the nine-month period ending on September 30, 2000, was $1,772,080, or $.03 per share of common stock."
The 4% Gary mentioned only applies to one devision within Quantum. We may expect Quantum's core devision to generate some positive income in subsequent quarters.
What about CBQI's other subsidiaries? Since CBQI had no problems announcing that one division within one subsidiary made money(only after adding back the charge offs), is it safe to assume CBQI's other subsidiaries remain non-profitable? Or do we speculate that they are generating earnings in line with Quantum?
ALL SUBSIDIARIES
Reliance Technologies, Inc.
Priority One Electronic Commerce Corporation
ChinaSoft, Inc.
ChinaPartners, Inc. Ie: Typher net,
It its disturbing to me that we would consider this news positive. If future acquisitions yield similar results, we will undoubtedly see continued negative income. Forget all other questions: Lets ask... How much stock did we forfiet for additional acquisitions, and will it dilute our positions?
Sincerely,
Bix
Gary,
I've read all the PRs at CBQI site. Did not see anything referring to 4% on core. Do you remember the article? If you find it please post link. Maybe it was on SEC Q?
Thanks
Bix