Replies to post #1875 on CBQ, Inc. (China Business Quotient) (fka CBQI)

[Georgia Bard]

Da consider using Bix's method. If you take the actual revenues posted and not the ARRR then it is 9M so you take the 1.4M x 4 = 5.6m would 62% thus taking the 12M x 62% you get a Project estimate of 7.44 for Quantum and the overall would be 27M x .62% would be 16.75M now anything over the 9M roughly is an improvement in revenues and work.

So depending on how we adjust the estimating variable the ARRR remains constant at 27M as a gauge for performance and shown in the filings.

This is why the SEC makes the last year numbers in the filing for a fair assessment for what the company did as compared to the previous year.

Now no analyst gets what Bix wants in his demand for certain corporate information outside the GAAP regulations. He knows he will not get what he wants and he knows it.

But you are right all his banter is showing people the growth of CBQ since 1999 and it si impressive. I also agree that it has grown from earnings to an absurd scenario but it is giving others a chance to show where CBQ has done very very well under the direction of Bart.

How about finishing the math and checking mine on the growth that I displayed from the previous filings.

CIIR cash & options

:=) Gary Swancey

[Bixmann]

A couple replies.

DA!

I am well aware that Gary justifies the April press release about $ 27 Million ARRR by calling it a "guage." You do not realize, my core issue with this release is that it came at a time that the quarter had ended which would allow the company to address the reduction in revs.

Instead, CBQI fed us the fluff story over disclosing the declining revenue performance. Technically its Gary's selected term. Not mine.

Revenue projection is a standard projection. Confused about that or not, I certainly hope you understand I am not about to fall into the trap of "assuming" the decline was "solely" a result of discontinued operations.

Wich Brings me to your comment in 1868:

Your suspicion was proven erroneous, because the filing clarified the fact that the revenue loss stemmed entirely from the change in the hardware distribution business.

"ENTRELY" never appeared in the Q

Furthermore, the Q completely ignores the question: What percentage of the total reduction in revs was allocated to "core" and "non-core" business? Gary says 100% non-core. When I asked him 'Did core bsiness decline?', he first said "not to my knowledge." Then, later in the night, he omniously states "Rus Fisher told him." Then I ask what are the percenges and he now quoates the vaige line in the Q. This inconsistancy is troubling. On top of all this, he continues to avoid my question. He is detracting attention from the issue with this talk about his preferred choice of analysis. Now I'm currious: Is answering my question that big of an effort for him? Or is he trying to avoid disclosing negative information because it contradicts his prior posts?


I trusted Gary's hype long ago. It cost me then, I wont let it cost me now. He is baised and allows his professional affiliations and vested financial interest affect his judgment.

AND THE BEST FOR LAST: ZEP THE MAN. OR ARE YOU A WOMAN?

Do you have any relationship to CBQI? How many shares did the company give you? Which acquisition do you come with? One of your earlier posts on RB's CBQI is a hype (post # 3068): In it you said:

Gary...thought I would mention that I received a very prompt and thoughful email from John Harris. He was kind enough to take a moment from his busy schedule to address my concerns about the overt manipulation of CBQI by those waskely MM'rs.

One sentence of his response was particularily welcome. He stated "We have applied for NASDAQ listing, and continue to work toward fulfilling ALL of our goals".

Isn't it ironic that a majority of those goals remain unachieved? I suppose only a mature investor would make excuses for and remain happy about this pattern of deciet.

Bix