Posted On: 07/25/2016 10:26:17 PM
Post# of 22940
Re: CountryMac #10453
is the statement below supposed to be constructive...?
"Lol so what financial model would you like them to setup with little to no historical data and a brand new business plan that hasnt even been finalized yet?"
well - for starters - they could reference the 6/15 business plan which was a more detailed, updated version of the 3/14 business plan. they could start with the numbers below taken from the 6/15 plan:
2. The Company is sole source to China, with price points a minimum of 24% less than what a
and MROs are paying now, and low cost to the global market
3. The Company dramatically changes global marketplace by reducing delivery
times
approximately 32-‐52 weeks to as little as 30 days
Pro Forma Income Statement ($m) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year
5 Revenue ($m) $4.20 $25.40 $67
$106 $149 Direct Labor Cost ($m) $0.30 $1.50
$4 $6 $9 Material Cost ($m)
$0.40 $2.30 $6 $9 $13 Production Overhead $m)
$0.80 $4.60 $12 $19 $27 Gross Profit
($m) $2.80 $17.00 $45 $71
$100 Costs of Sales (% of Revenue) 25% 25% 25%
25% 25% Costs of Sales ($m) $1.10
$6.30 $17 $26 $37 Corporate Overhead (% of Revenue) 30%
30% 20% 15% 10% Corporate Overhead ($m)
$1.3 $7.60 $13 $16 $15 Profit Before Tax ($m)
$0.50 $3.10 $15 $29 $48 Profit %
of Revenue 12% 12% 22% 27%
32%
Again - these are taken straight from their 6/15 business plan. those are some rather detailed projections with "little to no historical data." those were provided/updated when revenue operations hadnt even begun nor were expected to for another 6 months. revenue operations HAVE begun and should be expanding. so - relative to the original 5 year plan above which have Y1 revenues at $4.2MM and Y5 at $149MM - is the current outlook better or worse...? why is that such a difficult question? more importantly - why isnt every long term investor asking the same thing?
have you looked at the current overhead on a quarterly basis and the costs for SG&A? either they are producing revenues now that havent been announced, have arranged financing that hasnt been 8Kd, or will be diluting with stock sales to fund operations. per the last quarter - they would have gone insolvent within weeks of the report being due. obviously that isnt the case. so - how are they funding operations?
as far as the pictures of the plant - i didnt say the company was perpetuating a fraud. in the absence of concrete numbers, lack of cash, OS going from 1.8 to 3.5, and a rather argumentative and obtuse IR stream - it could be construed as such. i have seen OTC companies do trial runs, create a marketing stir, pump the hell out of the company and then ride off into the sunset while investors were left wondering what the hell happened. TBEV is a good, recent example. two R/s in 12 months and the price went right back down to 0.0001 within a month or so each time only to have another round of debt financing and grandiose promises from mgmt. never would mgmt EVER commit to any type of revenue stream.
now - i am NOT saying TPAC is in any way illegitimate. if i thought that (or ever start to think it), i wont be sticking around holding shares "hoping" i am wrong. further, it is much different spending $15-20K on a production run and hyping sales then spending $2-4MM on NAVAIR certification when competitors havent been able to achieve that level spending $10MM+ and over 12 years in R&D (per Bill's shareholder letter 7/15). mgmt/insiders would have to turn over a LOT of stock to payback that investment.
the disconnect is where the company is from a straightforward approach with investors back in 2014-2015 to where they are now. they were confident enough back 18 months ago to publish this revenue stream, talk about stock buybacks, and M&A. why can they not even commit to WHEN they will update investors on how current operating environment/restructuring has materially affected their outlook relative to just over a year ago? please - enlighten me. where is the rationale for keeping investors "waiting"...? while we wait, the PPS is getting taken advantage of and there continues to be dilution. while it may have been a small amount on a %basis to OS - it was STILL 70-80 MM shares and the price is within ticks of where it was trading a year ago at this time. that is against their commitment to maintaining and increasing shareholder value.
i have been impressed with Bill's commitment and straightforward approach in past calls, presentations, and Q&A. however, since IR has taken over - the communication has gone sideways and obfuscation seems to be the new "norm." back in the 7/15 CC - Bill routinely noted that this was a long process and not a "get rich quick" type of investment. he said it was going to be a long road but a lot of the heavy lifting had already been accomplished. he was very conservative and (again) straightforward with how they would ramp up those revenues on the 5 year plan (back then it was heavy on the M&A which would be financed by the Hong Kong backers based on existing acquisition target revenue streams and ability to dramatically accelerate based on $TPAC s certification and China based operations giving them cost advantage via offsets). so - why now is he so reticent to even give a timeframe on when he WILL update/discuss?
so - i would like them to stick with the financial model provided to investors last summer and update it to reflect new business structure and market environment (heavy on the SLAs vs acquisition relative to revenue expansion). start with revenue stream and then discuss how the SLA agreements affect material costs, production overhead, and ultimately GP per part which will ultimately determine how quickly they become profitable. since they had this level of detail and confidence over a year ago (longer when one assumes how long it took to prepare the plan and vet it prior to release) - i would think they would have a higher level of confidence now in the success even if the rate of expansion (or revenues/profits) may be more in question due to the nature of the SLAs.
i certainly do not think that is too much to ask for and the notion that i (or others) are "bashers" for questioning IR's commitment to such is absurd. this is absolutely, fundamental DD and the burden of legitimacy is squarely on the company until results prove prior commitments. it may be "unfair" but that is the nature of the OTC. besides, it is certainly in line with what analysts ask/question in any blue chip CC of quarterly results (top and bottom line growth or lack thereof and how costs and overhead materially impacted gross/net profit).
so - lets keep the board constructive and debate the pros and cons and drive unanswered questions through IR/company rather than suggest that these questions are being subtly answered via tweets or that the numbers can be gleamed from such if one looks deeper. right now - NONE of the announcements have been concrete. a lot of potential but nothing that one can pin specific numbers to and really compare market capitalization to fair market value in the PPS.
if anyone is interested in discussion and delving into this - i am more than inclined. if the remarks are going to be snide or pie in the sky cheerleading - i am not interested. OS is going up, PPS has been going down (though it looks like it has bottomed and ready to reverse), and the company still has not committed/recommitted to growth plans laid out in 2014 and 2015.
to me - that doesnt make sense.
"Lol so what financial model would you like them to setup with little to no historical data and a brand new business plan that hasnt even been finalized yet?"
well - for starters - they could reference the 6/15 business plan which was a more detailed, updated version of the 3/14 business plan. they could start with the numbers below taken from the 6/15 plan:
2. The Company is sole source to China, with price points a minimum of 24% less than what a
and MROs are paying now, and low cost to the global market
3. The Company dramatically changes global marketplace by reducing delivery
times
approximately 32-‐52 weeks to as little as 30 days
Pro Forma Income Statement ($m) Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year
5 Revenue ($m) $4.20 $25.40 $67
$106 $149 Direct Labor Cost ($m) $0.30 $1.50
$4 $6 $9 Material Cost ($m)
$0.40 $2.30 $6 $9 $13 Production Overhead $m)
$0.80 $4.60 $12 $19 $27 Gross Profit
($m) $2.80 $17.00 $45 $71
$100 Costs of Sales (% of Revenue) 25% 25% 25%
25% 25% Costs of Sales ($m) $1.10
$6.30 $17 $26 $37 Corporate Overhead (% of Revenue) 30%
30% 20% 15% 10% Corporate Overhead ($m)
$1.3 $7.60 $13 $16 $15 Profit Before Tax ($m)
$0.50 $3.10 $15 $29 $48 Profit %
of Revenue 12% 12% 22% 27%
32%
Again - these are taken straight from their 6/15 business plan. those are some rather detailed projections with "little to no historical data." those were provided/updated when revenue operations hadnt even begun nor were expected to for another 6 months. revenue operations HAVE begun and should be expanding. so - relative to the original 5 year plan above which have Y1 revenues at $4.2MM and Y5 at $149MM - is the current outlook better or worse...? why is that such a difficult question? more importantly - why isnt every long term investor asking the same thing?
have you looked at the current overhead on a quarterly basis and the costs for SG&A? either they are producing revenues now that havent been announced, have arranged financing that hasnt been 8Kd, or will be diluting with stock sales to fund operations. per the last quarter - they would have gone insolvent within weeks of the report being due. obviously that isnt the case. so - how are they funding operations?
as far as the pictures of the plant - i didnt say the company was perpetuating a fraud. in the absence of concrete numbers, lack of cash, OS going from 1.8 to 3.5, and a rather argumentative and obtuse IR stream - it could be construed as such. i have seen OTC companies do trial runs, create a marketing stir, pump the hell out of the company and then ride off into the sunset while investors were left wondering what the hell happened. TBEV is a good, recent example. two R/s in 12 months and the price went right back down to 0.0001 within a month or so each time only to have another round of debt financing and grandiose promises from mgmt. never would mgmt EVER commit to any type of revenue stream.
now - i am NOT saying TPAC is in any way illegitimate. if i thought that (or ever start to think it), i wont be sticking around holding shares "hoping" i am wrong. further, it is much different spending $15-20K on a production run and hyping sales then spending $2-4MM on NAVAIR certification when competitors havent been able to achieve that level spending $10MM+ and over 12 years in R&D (per Bill's shareholder letter 7/15). mgmt/insiders would have to turn over a LOT of stock to payback that investment.
the disconnect is where the company is from a straightforward approach with investors back in 2014-2015 to where they are now. they were confident enough back 18 months ago to publish this revenue stream, talk about stock buybacks, and M&A. why can they not even commit to WHEN they will update investors on how current operating environment/restructuring has materially affected their outlook relative to just over a year ago? please - enlighten me. where is the rationale for keeping investors "waiting"...? while we wait, the PPS is getting taken advantage of and there continues to be dilution. while it may have been a small amount on a %basis to OS - it was STILL 70-80 MM shares and the price is within ticks of where it was trading a year ago at this time. that is against their commitment to maintaining and increasing shareholder value.
i have been impressed with Bill's commitment and straightforward approach in past calls, presentations, and Q&A. however, since IR has taken over - the communication has gone sideways and obfuscation seems to be the new "norm." back in the 7/15 CC - Bill routinely noted that this was a long process and not a "get rich quick" type of investment. he said it was going to be a long road but a lot of the heavy lifting had already been accomplished. he was very conservative and (again) straightforward with how they would ramp up those revenues on the 5 year plan (back then it was heavy on the M&A which would be financed by the Hong Kong backers based on existing acquisition target revenue streams and ability to dramatically accelerate based on $TPAC s certification and China based operations giving them cost advantage via offsets). so - why now is he so reticent to even give a timeframe on when he WILL update/discuss?
so - i would like them to stick with the financial model provided to investors last summer and update it to reflect new business structure and market environment (heavy on the SLAs vs acquisition relative to revenue expansion). start with revenue stream and then discuss how the SLA agreements affect material costs, production overhead, and ultimately GP per part which will ultimately determine how quickly they become profitable. since they had this level of detail and confidence over a year ago (longer when one assumes how long it took to prepare the plan and vet it prior to release) - i would think they would have a higher level of confidence now in the success even if the rate of expansion (or revenues/profits) may be more in question due to the nature of the SLAs.
i certainly do not think that is too much to ask for and the notion that i (or others) are "bashers" for questioning IR's commitment to such is absurd. this is absolutely, fundamental DD and the burden of legitimacy is squarely on the company until results prove prior commitments. it may be "unfair" but that is the nature of the OTC. besides, it is certainly in line with what analysts ask/question in any blue chip CC of quarterly results (top and bottom line growth or lack thereof and how costs and overhead materially impacted gross/net profit).
so - lets keep the board constructive and debate the pros and cons and drive unanswered questions through IR/company rather than suggest that these questions are being subtly answered via tweets or that the numbers can be gleamed from such if one looks deeper. right now - NONE of the announcements have been concrete. a lot of potential but nothing that one can pin specific numbers to and really compare market capitalization to fair market value in the PPS.
if anyone is interested in discussion and delving into this - i am more than inclined. if the remarks are going to be snide or pie in the sky cheerleading - i am not interested. OS is going up, PPS has been going down (though it looks like it has bottomed and ready to reverse), and the company still has not committed/recommitted to growth plans laid out in 2014 and 2015.
to me - that doesnt make sense.
(3)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼
