I completely agree - every concerned shareholder s
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 06/30/2016 1:16:18 PM
I completely agree - every concerned shareholder should write Bill and convey their thoughts directly with respect to this unprofessional behavior below. If Bill condones it - then it will make my decision easier to move on.
I normally wouldnt even address a post such as this but when it comes as, once again, another defensive attack from what isis supoosed to be an ambassador for the brand/shareholders - one should respond and let other shareholders decide for themselves what type of mouthpiece is best for the company.
- I am not a "basher." Far from it. I am a stockholder with well into 8 figures and a cost basis that was steadilysteadily increasing until recently. You dont want me to sell. PPS cant absorb the constant selling from VNDM now and which IR seems to have no answers for.
- My concern is (was?) directly with the handling of information or lack thereof with IR/muse. That seems to be rather obvious with most of the readers on here. The concerns seem genuinely mutual with the heart of my issues. If you take that as "bashing" then you/your organization need to really brush up on your understanding of the OTC dynamics, manipulation, and what real "bashers" do and how they manipulate. Based on the preponderence of evidence and circumstance combined with the stock price before/after IR took over and the emergence of dilutive MMs - it looks more like a "pump n dump" on your part than bashing on mine. DD and asking for direct answers in a public disclosure format IS NOT bashing. It is due diligence which is even more critical in this realm. You are a penny stock that is now back in trips - NOT a blue chip. Understand the difference.
- You /the company STILL refuse to address the critical questions that have been asked and "skirted" around and caused myself and others to show public concern:
1. What is the name of your firm? (Why in the world would this be confidential - goes sfraight to credibility and transparency for investors)
2. How are you compensated? This goes straight to bias/vested interest. Very straightforward and you have given conflicting answers. This should NOT be a secret. Goes straight to credibility based on bias. Granted - paid agents of former toxic lenders were disruptive of CCs, Timken, etc.
3. Guidance on revenue. Again - very different from what you are responding to. Bill provided very specific goals/targets in biz plan that has since been abolished and being reconstructed in 90 day plan. What is 2016 year end guidance range and/or when will IR/company provide it. Announcing SLAs 12-24 months out that may or may not come to fruition is NOT the same as saying: "We expect revenues to be between $500K and $2.5MM in 2016. Tighter guidance is not prudent at this time due to the nature of being a start up and the switching of revenue generation from in house to 3rd party licensing/SLA agreements." Straightforward. Real numbers. Not esoteric numbers with no definitive terms or contracts with teeth. Why is this difficult? Why keep ignoring the real question? I have been specific. Bill gave a 5 year revenue projection in biz plan along with decreasing OS that many long term investors considered the "fundamentals ". What are those new fundamentals and/or when will they specifically be updated? If these agreements and deals are specific in terms of start dates and production values - baselines should be straightforward on the minimum side of guidance.
I will address others later due to time constraints now.
You are quickly losing credibility trying to dismiss my valid concerns by lumping me in with them is rather silly when looking at my entire posting history here and elsewhere let alone completely unprofessional and flat out wrong. Worse, when you have an actual, long term investor that has been rather complimentary to the company at large over the last 12-24 months ask critical questions and then lambast me as a basher - you actually provide easy fodder for the real detractors on iLie to have a field day with your comments. If you arent going to address the specific questions and concerns above - do us all a favor and say nothing. I and other long term shareholders that i personally correspond with cant help but notice the direct correlation between the stock price and your emergence. Worse, the price spike prior to VNDM showing up and continually unloading shares driving the price down (again - fodder for the P&D argument).
For other concerned shareholders, I suggest you write to CEO directly if you find this type of response unproductive, unprofessional, and counter intuitive to the role that seems to be regular IR groups. Alienating long term investors with critical questions is NOT conducive to fostering respect, loyalty, and creating long term holders. Having me sell and move on tanks the price and forces others to sell. That imbalance from a large shareholder leaving becomes easy fodder for MM to naked short with little risk. How exactly does that strengthen the company and/or help shareholders...?
Again - if you are concerned as I am - go to Bill directly.
"Greetings TPAC Shareholders.
There are “shareholder concern” posts on places like IHUB and now Investors Hang Out. (In particular addressing the alias – thesmalls-- on Investors Hangout)
The post states that TPAC/IR skirts around revenue inquiries (among a list of other things that won’t be addressed here). This is so far from the truth. The IH subscriber that posted such information has made inaccurate and false accusations. The post stated that there is a disconnect. I would like for this to truly be a disconnect but I am now sure it isn’t.
It has been approved by CEO Bill McKay, as of May 4th, that IR can release deal structure information for the following forms of business dealings during the reconstruction:
• All contracts, of type purchase orders, Licensing Agreements, Service Level Agreements, PF Share agreements/distributions and OS structure information.
IR has tweeted that we could not extract information prior to the reconstruction period however since then we have provided direct information when requested for:
• O/S directly from the TA
• Deal structure including revenue time frame Licensing Agreement
• Deal Structure including revenue time frame Service Level Agreement
The revenue standard has been lowered from $250K to $75K (which should be restored)
IR has even provided news on Request for Quotes.
This is a new standard for TPAC"
I normally wouldnt even address a post such as this but when it comes as, once again, another defensive attack from what isis supoosed to be an ambassador for the brand/shareholders - one should respond and let other shareholders decide for themselves what type of mouthpiece is best for the company.
- I am not a "basher." Far from it. I am a stockholder with well into 8 figures and a cost basis that was steadilysteadily increasing until recently. You dont want me to sell. PPS cant absorb the constant selling from VNDM now and which IR seems to have no answers for.
- My concern is (was?) directly with the handling of information or lack thereof with IR/muse. That seems to be rather obvious with most of the readers on here. The concerns seem genuinely mutual with the heart of my issues. If you take that as "bashing" then you/your organization need to really brush up on your understanding of the OTC dynamics, manipulation, and what real "bashers" do and how they manipulate. Based on the preponderence of evidence and circumstance combined with the stock price before/after IR took over and the emergence of dilutive MMs - it looks more like a "pump n dump" on your part than bashing on mine. DD and asking for direct answers in a public disclosure format IS NOT bashing. It is due diligence which is even more critical in this realm. You are a penny stock that is now back in trips - NOT a blue chip. Understand the difference.
- You /the company STILL refuse to address the critical questions that have been asked and "skirted" around and caused myself and others to show public concern:
1. What is the name of your firm? (Why in the world would this be confidential - goes sfraight to credibility and transparency for investors)
2. How are you compensated? This goes straight to bias/vested interest. Very straightforward and you have given conflicting answers. This should NOT be a secret. Goes straight to credibility based on bias. Granted - paid agents of former toxic lenders were disruptive of CCs, Timken, etc.
3. Guidance on revenue. Again - very different from what you are responding to. Bill provided very specific goals/targets in biz plan that has since been abolished and being reconstructed in 90 day plan. What is 2016 year end guidance range and/or when will IR/company provide it. Announcing SLAs 12-24 months out that may or may not come to fruition is NOT the same as saying: "We expect revenues to be between $500K and $2.5MM in 2016. Tighter guidance is not prudent at this time due to the nature of being a start up and the switching of revenue generation from in house to 3rd party licensing/SLA agreements." Straightforward. Real numbers. Not esoteric numbers with no definitive terms or contracts with teeth. Why is this difficult? Why keep ignoring the real question? I have been specific. Bill gave a 5 year revenue projection in biz plan along with decreasing OS that many long term investors considered the "fundamentals ". What are those new fundamentals and/or when will they specifically be updated? If these agreements and deals are specific in terms of start dates and production values - baselines should be straightforward on the minimum side of guidance.
I will address others later due to time constraints now.
You are quickly losing credibility trying to dismiss my valid concerns by lumping me in with them is rather silly when looking at my entire posting history here and elsewhere let alone completely unprofessional and flat out wrong. Worse, when you have an actual, long term investor that has been rather complimentary to the company at large over the last 12-24 months ask critical questions and then lambast me as a basher - you actually provide easy fodder for the real detractors on iLie to have a field day with your comments. If you arent going to address the specific questions and concerns above - do us all a favor and say nothing. I and other long term shareholders that i personally correspond with cant help but notice the direct correlation between the stock price and your emergence. Worse, the price spike prior to VNDM showing up and continually unloading shares driving the price down (again - fodder for the P&D argument).
For other concerned shareholders, I suggest you write to CEO directly if you find this type of response unproductive, unprofessional, and counter intuitive to the role that seems to be regular IR groups. Alienating long term investors with critical questions is NOT conducive to fostering respect, loyalty, and creating long term holders. Having me sell and move on tanks the price and forces others to sell. That imbalance from a large shareholder leaving becomes easy fodder for MM to naked short with little risk. How exactly does that strengthen the company and/or help shareholders...?
Again - if you are concerned as I am - go to Bill directly.
"Greetings TPAC Shareholders.
There are “shareholder concern” posts on places like IHUB and now Investors Hang Out. (In particular addressing the alias – thesmalls-- on Investors Hangout)
The post states that TPAC/IR skirts around revenue inquiries (among a list of other things that won’t be addressed here). This is so far from the truth. The IH subscriber that posted such information has made inaccurate and false accusations. The post stated that there is a disconnect. I would like for this to truly be a disconnect but I am now sure it isn’t.
It has been approved by CEO Bill McKay, as of May 4th, that IR can release deal structure information for the following forms of business dealings during the reconstruction:
• All contracts, of type purchase orders, Licensing Agreements, Service Level Agreements, PF Share agreements/distributions and OS structure information.
IR has tweeted that we could not extract information prior to the reconstruction period however since then we have provided direct information when requested for:
• O/S directly from the TA
• Deal structure including revenue time frame Licensing Agreement
• Deal Structure including revenue time frame Service Level Agreement
The revenue standard has been lowered from $250K to $75K (which should be restored)
IR has even provided news on Request for Quotes.
This is a new standard for TPAC"
(10)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼