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.
Correction to last post: "MyTrack is somewhat worse."
Yes, I can echo that type of experience. I have placed orders through Vanguard Brokerage Services, whose trading platform is driven by DLJ, and I get fills much more quickly and sometimes at a better price than my Limit order. MyTrack is somewhat better (although I must admit that I do not use their ability to specify routing of the order). Schwab, on the other hand is atrocious, and will rape the rube.
Thanks, SI Bob. There's always more to learn about the way this market works.
Are you also a student? Which "school"?
Oooooooo, wouldn't that be a BUYING OPPORTUNITY!!!
INVEST7168, thanks for the heads up. Look like it's about time to place a call to CBQ. I haven't done so for awhile, as I have felt well informed by Gary's work. Also, it seemed we were in an interim doldrums period. Things may now be hopping, however, which would suit me just fine. Hmmmmmm, we may have seen the low today. I may not be able to stop myself from buying tomorree.
goldengate, a number of HRCT's deals have not ended up as expected when announced. There are, I'm sure, good reasons for this. In some cases, such as eSat, the deal falling apart was a good thing for HRCT. In a deal such as the Publication Rights on the Internet of Supreme Court cases, the JV was never set up and the publication right was not issued. In a deal such as Innostar, the license ws not issued, and HRCT doesn't probably doesn't have the $10 million in capital necessary for its 35% interest. In others as well, HRCT most likely could not come up with the capital required. If TSS was a deal for a 5% stake, it would seem like a bit of waste of time. eMPACT is a $300,000 investment that has not been followed up with any further capital. I would bet that the original intent of that deal has changed, anyway. And then there was SCIC. Where'd that one go?
I prefer not to ignore the truth, rather than be a bulldog growling and gnashing my teeth at any hint of negative reality.
Deals are struck. It's not unusual for some of them not to work out. Like I said, there are good reasons here, I'm sure. Thank goodness we didn't pay $50 million for the Shenzhen Rayes Group. That deal may eventual prove fruitful, but HRCT cannot absorb that burn rate. Nor are many American partners interested in it at the moment, I would think.
It's tough when yesterday's highways to riches become today's roads not taken. But c'mon. Let's not kid ourselves here. Some things have not worked out as hoped. It's been a hell of a market the past year. It's understandable. There are still good opportunities in the pipeline. The pipeline's record is not flawless, but it's not atreocious, either. Let's hope there are some big payoffs coming.
Whizz, for some reason you insist on fabricating an argument with me. How can I be wrong? I have no opinion about why the stock price went down today, and I certainly have not expressed one. You have expressed your opinion. You are entitled to it.
Fritz, glad to hear it. And you are right about Gary's role here. He responds quickly to all responses with straightforward information.
Fritz, I hope you don't come here to find out what is happening with this company. Please tell me that is not the case.
Whizz, I owe you no sensible explanation. My hat's off to you for sharing your opinion earlier today that U.S.-Chinese politics will hamper CBQ's ability to book sales for its services. I have told you why I think that opinion is ridiculous. Now, you have tried to turn this into a discussion of the stock price. I prefer not to try to explain the day-to-day movement of a stock. I think it is fruitless exercise. Find someone else to challenge. In the meantime, I await your next keen observation about CBQ's business prospects.
That one certainly got my attention.
Stock_Whizz, I am sure there is, too!
Fritz, I didn't assume you were too young. I said you MAY be too young. But it's always safe to be careful when speaking about age. Some are sensitive about it. LOL
You don't need to "hope" I'm right about China. I have posted facts as reported by the United States government. I did so because they depict a reality that many people are not aware of, or choose to ignore, or attempt to misrepresent. That's not to say that there aren't risks. There are risks.
Stock QWhizz, there is only one sensible response to that question. More shares have been sold than bought.
On the other hand, we have read reports by those who claimed they had bought shares at the Bid. If you can give me a sensible reason why this has persistently been reported, then I will be willing to say that a fair market has been made in this security.
It's funny, 0you812, but this PR had a lot more substance to it than a good many of the past PRs that were met with great shareholder cheers. This PR had facts in it that will not be dissolved by subsequent SEC filings.
We fill these boards with clamors for major PRs. We get them. Then we find out that many of the deals were for naught. Something is wrong with this picture.
Hartcourt is in a difficult period right now. In my opinion they need to focus on a few critical priorities. I shudder when I read Alan saying that he is going to China to work on new deals. On the other hand, I don't know the substance of these deals nor what led other deals to fall apart (whether by circumstance or choice).
The best thing about the 10KSB will be if it finally gets us to view all PRs with the proper amount of skepticism. We also have to read the entire PR. In particular, that forward-looking statement disclaimer tht can be found at the bottom of each one.
Fritz, your conceptions about imported trade goods are endearing yet antiquated. You may be too young to remember when the phrase "Made in Japan" was a joke, but I'm not. People identified Japanese goods with cheap toys. Then, all of a sudden they were dominating the electronics and automobile markets. Granted, this is a new millenium. Undoubtedly the Chinese economic success story will differ from Japan's, but in a few years I guarantee that you will not think of cheap plastic McDonalds toys when you think of Chinese goods.
More information from the ITA web site:
Electronics and machinery sales drove much of the boom in China's exports. Accounting for about two-fifths of all exports, the value of these products increased 36 percent in 2000. High-tech exports – fueled mainly by indirect investment from Taiwan---grew by 50 percent, up three times from 1995. With this strong performance, China was the world's third largest computer hardware exporter in 2000. Garment, raw textile, shoe, and toy exports---long the engines of Chinese export growth---underperformed the average increase in overseas sales.
Exported Value Percent Percent
US$ bil. of total change
Overall 249.2 100.0 27.8
Elect./machinery 105.3 42.3 36.9
Hi tech 37.0 14.8 50.0
Garments 36.0 14.4 19.8
Textiles/yarn 16.2 6.5 23.7
Shoes 9.9 4.0 13.5
Toys 5.6 2.2 9.1
Plastic products 4.9 2.0 24.9
Travel/suitcases 3.8 1.5 13.6
You may feel that the best defense is a good offense, but I'm not going to play that game. Your argument that clients would not do business with CBQI due to U.S-Chinese politics was insensible. I pointed that out. Regardless of your response, that does not require me to explain CBQI's current share price.
You may not have bought goods originating from China, but you are probably the only American who doesn't. The following data is from the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration web site:
"The United States was the largest importer of goods from China in 2000, and China's second largest trading partner after Japan. According to Chinese statistics, China exported US$ 52 billion worth of goods and services to the United States, and imported US$ 22 billion, yielding a US$ 29 billion bilateral surplus. Chinese statisticians estimate that over half of China's exports were processed goods, and at least half of all processed products go to the united states. China also ran a US$ 35 billion surplus with Hong Kong. (Chinese statistics do not break out the value of goods transiting Hong Kong to another final destination. Many of the exports attributed to Hong Kong are in fact destined for the United States or Europe. This difference in recording practice also leads to a significant discrepancy between U.S. and Chinese bilateral trade statistics.)"
Stock Whizz, have you been to the store lately?
I assume the answer is no, or else you would have recognized that a significant percentage of the items you purchased were made in China.
It's OK to confuse political posturing with economic reality, but try not to embarass yourself too much.
Over the coming years, there will continue to be political tensions between the United States and China. There will be times when these tensions will heighten and others when they will diminish. But short of outright war, business will continue to be transacted.
Good grief, do you remember the ban on trade with Libya back in the early 80s? A business owned by one of the wealthiest families in Chicago continued doing business with Libya throughout that trade ban. They flagrantly broke the law because the money to be made was too good to pass up. I knew the international trade attorney handling that client's business at the time.
This latest spat with China is nowhere close to the ban on trade with Libya. Right now, in boardrooms of Fortune 100 companies across the country, businesses are trying to figure out how they can best penetrate the Chinese market. To be sure, they are considering the political realities. But these are merely variables in their strategic equations. The fact is that they are all developing China strategies. Perhaps you might wish to share your keen observations with them.
If you wish to highlight the difficulties that CBQI faces, I welcome your contributions. That kind of discourse helps people to better understand their investment. But please try to make your arguments sensible.
Gary, I visited the qnettech.com site today to see who was listed currently on their "list of clients" page. However, the site seems to have changed a bit and I couldn't find the list of clients. Some questions:
Is there a plan to list CBQ's clients in the short term? (I know that this could change with acquisitions, but that doesn't preclude getting a current one out there now.)
I seem to remember that Lockheed was one of the clients included on the qnettech clients page. Can you confirm that? If true, can you comment on the business that CBQ has with Lockheed?
That would make sense. I spoke with John Moran last year while Bart was in China and proposed a potential JV with another company that has operations in China. He said he would pass along the info and get back to me in a couple of days. I never heard back from him. He did not return my calls, and when I spoke to Bart later, he had never received any of the info. Thus, it would not surprise me in the least that John Moran was interested in pursuing ventures other than those in China.
When companies change hands, there are people who leave. That is a given. The key thing is to try to minimize loss of the critical institutional knowledge. There are some people who you will not want to keep. There are others who you will. This is especially true in the type of business Quantum is in, where a company's main source of value is in its development and implementation teams.
However, CBQ has the added dimension of outsourcing work to Chinese programmers. This tends to make Quantum the distribution arm. The key responsibilities of that arm would be sales, relationship building, sales, project management, quality assurance, and more sales.
My question then would be: Have the people who have left compromised Quantum's (now CBQNet's?) ability to perform those responsibilities effectively?
metoo, I believe that it is important to acknowledge the bad (or dismal, in this case), or else it is not possible to evaluate the actual and potential value of an investment.
All I can say is that it is necessary to read this latest 10KSB filing from front to back and understand it thoroughly. This is your best opprtunity to understand the company, because the law requires that it state in black and white how it has been operating. It can be entertaining and/or potentially informative to trade accounts regarding what is stated at informal shareholder meetings or on bulletin board threads such as this one. But treat that type of information for what it is: HEARSAY---nothing more.
I am a shareholder in HRCT. But I will not intentionally try to make myself into a fool. I do a good enough job of that unintentionally. I would be a fool if I simply mouthed the good message and blew sunshine you know where. At times, the latter role appears to be the job of the former CEO. On the other hand, I would like to think that he has access to more information that we are privy, and therefore must do what he can to share his vision of where we're going.
If this forum is to be of any value, we have to be honest about the company in which we have invested. As I stated over the weekend, I have learned that I must discount information released by the company by a factor of 50% to 75%. This filing confirms the necessity of that approach.
Over the past year and a half, we have spent a lot of time on the RB thread spinning shimmering images of the glory that will be the Empire of Hartcourt. We have taken the company's stated intentions and executed them brilliantly in the theaters of our minds. Unfortunately, the value of the company's stock is not based upon fictional realms. The business plan must be executed in the real world. I think that we would be a lot better off if we let the company execute its plan and focused our attention on the record of what is, not the dazzling notion of what we would like it to be.
I am still an investor in this company because even after I have discounted company-released information, I like the 25% to 50% that I am left with. But I will not be party to a conspiracy of happy talk that in fact works to make victims of us all. We all want to hear and believe the best. If we do not guard ourselves against this tendency, then we will willing victims. And there is a funny thing about willing victims, victimizers are very good at finding them and turning them into what they are so well positioned to become.
Think about the psychological effect that a basher has. We all understand the fear, uncertainty, and doubt aspects of their work. But do we understand the way they attempt to blind and distract? By attacking, they prompt people to make vigorous defenses. If you are busy defending and attacking back, what are you not doing? Staying in touch with the reality of your investment. If we cede the skeptical space to the bashers, then we have ceded a large part of the value our community can offer.
Do you think that they did not understand the reality that would become clear in this filing? Do you think they did not time their strategies accordingly?
That's OK, if you feel they didn't. But simply consider the possibility that they did.
Think about it.
And then consider what we want this forum to be.
Da!
The 10KSB is rather sobering reading. True, the financials are bad. But what really catches my attention is the litany of deals that have not closed. Either the DD phase after LOI's were signed unearthed unappealing information about the partners. Or the necessary funding could not be raised. Or market conditions deteriorated. Or the political climate changed....
Or somebody wasted a heck of a lot of time and energy on deals that never came to fruition.
Heck, people are being asked to open brokerage accounts in Koffman Securities, and that deal hasn't even closed.
Anybody see things in a different light?
Thanks, EZ. Hope springs eternal in Cubbiedom on Opening Day. Heck, this year I'd settle for a June swoon...
Interesting. Since I posted the last message, NDBC joined MHMY in the box. If anyone knows, does that make the maneuver "legal"?
MHMY has had it boxed all day. Don't what they were doing last week, because I wasn't following things closely...
I heartily endorse The Eagle's sentiments! Anyone who has an important question will help all of us, as well as the level of discourse on this thread, by going to the source, getting an answer, and sharing it for all to see. It is OK if we call HRCT separately. I think they would rather be bothered by multiple calls than deal with the problems raised by misinformation (whether honest or not-so-honest).
Da!
marshell, as I understand it, the reason the revenues are not included in the 2000 10K is because HRCT's percentage ownership in SA and SB did not become greater than 50% until December 31, 2000. As HRCT has explained it at least, the reason the revenues were not included previously had to do with the way accounting standards (I can't remember if they were U.S. or Chineses standards) treated less-than-majority ownership.
Da!
A very civilized way to conduct a forum. Here's to you if you are responsible for it!
Nice job EZ and Tin-Berrygood.
Whizz, you claim to be a techie with a large company. I can't verify that. But if you are, then you know that E-Commerce is not just Amazon, e-bay, E-Toys, and Priceline. Every week, the unit I work with as a contractor has a client come in who is looking to leverage E-Commerce / E-Business. These are Fortune 100 companies like GM, AT&T, Lilly, American Express, etc.
They and the consultants who work with them say the same thing: in a few years nobody will talk about developing an e-Business strategy, because in a few years you will not be able to talk about e-Business strategy separately from business strategy.
E-Commerce is not and will never be dead. Business models built around E-Commerce are out of favor in the market right now. So are technology business models. But it's just a matter of time until the worm turns.
It is not an E-Commerce company. CBQ is a technology company. It is an E-Solutions provider. It provides the types of solutions that any, and I mean ANY, business will need if it is to succeed in the foreseeable future.
You are right about one thing, of course. The stock price is low. It may stay low for a while. We'll have to see. But it is not going to remain low because CBQ is perceived as an E-Commerce company.
Whizz, I'm not sure what you are basing your analysis on here. What I do know is that companies I have worked with on growth strategies have two options: organic growth (from within) and via acquisition. Both avenues to growth are viable. Both avenues have their own attendant risks and rewards. Both can be rewarded and penalized by the street.
Gary, I'll send you an e-mail later, because I don't have your new number.
Da!
Hey, Gary. What's up, guy? Hope you're settling in in sunny FLA. Got two questions for ya:
1. Have you noticed who is all of a sudden NOT making a market in HRCT these days? (Bet there's a story there.)
2. You wouldn't have moved down to FLA to be better able to make "connections", wouldd ya? (If ya know what I mean...)
Da!
Nice release, Gary. Very nice! The fact taht the deal is expected to be completed by March 15 is also nice. I have seen companies make announcements like this and the actual transaction doesn't close for months. I'll be out all day, but look forward to reading the discussion when I get back home tonight.
Da!
P.S. Hope you're settling in well, Gary!
Gary, good luck with your move. Tell you what, do yourself a favor and don't set that computer up right away. Take some time to settle in if you can. We'll miss you, of course, but know you'll be back as soon as it makes sense.
Da!
A little covering going on today? Boy, here's hoping that Gary can get the goods on this baster and that he's very, very short. I would love to see some concerted covering go on. Then let's roll out the fundamental developments. Yes, it's nice to dream. But something tells me this dream may just come true.
Gary what does it mean when WMIN is on both the Bid and the Ask? They have been in that position before, I seem to remember.
Kewl! Uh-oh, not the S-word again. We may be looking at a thaw here in Chitown over the next week or so. Although I saw some gflakes on the forecast screen, so I shouldn't count on it.
TWilliamM, the way I look at the North American units of CBQ is as the distribution arm of the Chinese programming resources. Adding on acquisitions here will serve to enlarge the distribution base. It may also serve to add intellectual property---i.e., products and services that the Chinese resources can help to build and customize. Ideally, as these acquisitions are added, CBQ will keep the key knowledge base and shed excess capacity. Most software companies have a lot of programmers who actually implement the company's solutions for their clients. CBQ has a wealth of these resources in China. I would also like to see CBQ acquire a company that has demonstrated expertise in software outsourcing---ideally in utilizing foreign-based resources.