I am not in this for the short term but the short
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 06/08/2016 12:25:14 PM
I am not in this for the short term but the short term right now is critical with respect to share structure. without support - current shareholders could be looking at massive dilution (again).
since IRMuse is obviously responding to these posts - maybe they will specifically address the below:
EOY 2015 - we were looking at valuations based on future share count of 1BB-1.5BB OS based on updates from Bill on buyback and ongoings. on 12/27/15the OS was stated as 2.3BB and we were looking at another 800MM in buybacks. today it was just stated by IR as 3.5BB. what happened...? where did all those shares come from? a thorough accounting of those in CLEAR, CONCISE language is appropriate at this juncture. that is 2-3x what investors were considering as of the beginning of this year based on updates from Bill on buybacks and retiring shares. there was and remains confusion on the OS and what is in the float. while separate - they are definitely related.
QUESTION (request for comment): please provide a concise summary of OS from 12/27/15 to 6/8/16 on how it went from 2.3 to 3.5BB
2016 GUIDANCE - prior business plan had $4-5MM in 12 months proceeding beginning of production as 1Y revenues. shareholders are aware of @ $100K in what should be booked revenues for 2016 (productions started late 2015).
QUESTION: what is new Y1/2016 revenue guidance with the new business strategy/plan?
if this is still being evaluated within the 90 day business review - will TPAC/Bill/IR update 2016/Y1 revenue guidance at the end of 90 day review. YES/NO? is the original 3/14 business plan 5Y revenue projections still valid?
i have read every post, email, tweet that IR has provided. i read the PR rationale. i also read the prior rationale on $250K and above. business world changes constantly. markets change constantly. business adapt and respond to survive/get stronger. a $135MM agreement is a MAJOR change and an entity cant just fall back on "no PRs for 2016." that makes no business nor logistical sense when it comes to shareholders.
QUESTION: specifically - why is the company NOT going to release a PR about that significant SLA? what is the business rationale for NOT doing it? please be specific and/or ask Bill to respond accordingly if this is not under your responsibility role.
i dont understand the tone in your replies via Twitter/tweet longer. we should all be on the same page. this isnt me/us against you/company. a good deal of the folks on here view this as a long term investment which is unlike 95%+ of OTC/pink sheet stocks. however, that "trust" in the company is perishable and needs to be earned every day, week, month in this realm. you (IR) can not get defensive (or provide the appearance of) when these questions are asked. it does neither you nor the shareholders any good. the company is competing for investment dollars from shareholders just like it is competing for capital from banks or VC. not only do you need to retain this capital from long term shareholders, you MUST continue to get new shareholders to buy into the long term vision. in this regard, again, we all have the same goal. however, if these basic questions can not be answered or have the appearance of being danced around, then the function of IR has become broken and becomes a detriment and deterrent rather than a welcoming beacon for new investment dollars. that is an issue regardless of what "role" IR has.
please address the questions above in a tweet or email out to the list serve with clear, concise answers that answer the questions directly.
sincerely - long term shareholder
since IRMuse is obviously responding to these posts - maybe they will specifically address the below:
EOY 2015 - we were looking at valuations based on future share count of 1BB-1.5BB OS based on updates from Bill on buyback and ongoings. on 12/27/15the OS was stated as 2.3BB and we were looking at another 800MM in buybacks. today it was just stated by IR as 3.5BB. what happened...? where did all those shares come from? a thorough accounting of those in CLEAR, CONCISE language is appropriate at this juncture. that is 2-3x what investors were considering as of the beginning of this year based on updates from Bill on buybacks and retiring shares. there was and remains confusion on the OS and what is in the float. while separate - they are definitely related.
QUESTION (request for comment): please provide a concise summary of OS from 12/27/15 to 6/8/16 on how it went from 2.3 to 3.5BB
2016 GUIDANCE - prior business plan had $4-5MM in 12 months proceeding beginning of production as 1Y revenues. shareholders are aware of @ $100K in what should be booked revenues for 2016 (productions started late 2015).
QUESTION: what is new Y1/2016 revenue guidance with the new business strategy/plan?
if this is still being evaluated within the 90 day business review - will TPAC/Bill/IR update 2016/Y1 revenue guidance at the end of 90 day review. YES/NO? is the original 3/14 business plan 5Y revenue projections still valid?
i have read every post, email, tweet that IR has provided. i read the PR rationale. i also read the prior rationale on $250K and above. business world changes constantly. markets change constantly. business adapt and respond to survive/get stronger. a $135MM agreement is a MAJOR change and an entity cant just fall back on "no PRs for 2016." that makes no business nor logistical sense when it comes to shareholders.
QUESTION: specifically - why is the company NOT going to release a PR about that significant SLA? what is the business rationale for NOT doing it? please be specific and/or ask Bill to respond accordingly if this is not under your responsibility role.
i dont understand the tone in your replies via Twitter/tweet longer. we should all be on the same page. this isnt me/us against you/company. a good deal of the folks on here view this as a long term investment which is unlike 95%+ of OTC/pink sheet stocks. however, that "trust" in the company is perishable and needs to be earned every day, week, month in this realm. you (IR) can not get defensive (or provide the appearance of) when these questions are asked. it does neither you nor the shareholders any good. the company is competing for investment dollars from shareholders just like it is competing for capital from banks or VC. not only do you need to retain this capital from long term shareholders, you MUST continue to get new shareholders to buy into the long term vision. in this regard, again, we all have the same goal. however, if these basic questions can not be answered or have the appearance of being danced around, then the function of IR has become broken and becomes a detriment and deterrent rather than a welcoming beacon for new investment dollars. that is an issue regardless of what "role" IR has.
please address the questions above in a tweet or email out to the list serve with clear, concise answers that answer the questions directly.
sincerely - long term shareholder
(15)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼