$TPAC Thank you to you as well, smalls. It is great to

$TPAC Thank you to you as well, smalls. It is great to see balanced overviews such as the one you submitted. No matter the caliber of the company, there are always two sides to the coin, and it is imperative to remain cognizant of both. I liken a company to a puzzle. It is best to have all of the pieces out on the table (or even in the box right beside) to have a clear vision as to what is already in place, what needs work, and a way to go about getting from where it is at to where it needs to be, which, in essence, is akin to the picture on the box that made you purchase the puzzle in the first place.

To touch on some of your points - yes, everything is suspect in the OTC. That said, every now and again, there emerges a company, product and management team that rises above typical penny stock dynamics. I believe that that is what we have with TPAC. Analytics and left brain calculations aside, part of the picture in the creation of personal stock market success transcends turning over even the smallest of stones, and is more macro in nature, which is where gut sense, intuition, and market pulse take over. Gut sense has told me from very early on that this is a good place to be. Counterbalanced by analysis and methodology, I have realized also that every company, the best of the best included, will have issues that need to be resolved. There would be no need for meetings and management should that not be the case. Every company from here to Berkshire has both. And as I mentioned above, it's best to see both sides of the coin at once and all the pieces of the puzzle as well - not just the pros and not just the cons.

I also had trouble with some of the audio. While the vocal delivery of the hosts were clear, there were breakups that caused gaps in continuity and the overall clarity that they would have otherwise successfully delivered. All in all, I felt that, technical difficulties aside, the CC was a success.

Pertaining to your request(s) for answers as to the IR, I am at a loss for further information. I know little more now in that regard than before the call. What I did like was the explanation of what the FR was, as I felt James did a very clear and concise job of stating FR's role, one which as it was further explained, seemed to be a highly advantageous role to the company and the fast forwarding of its future.

To begin addressing your pros and cons, which I have to do in a hurry since my laptop is dying again, here goes.

DJ mentioned the 2-3M figure was in fact the number of bearings per production run; which, according to the math, one production run, with $7-9M need for the raw materials for each $13.5M that BTL can produce annually, would put us in a very nice place, and in stark comparison to where we stand. There is an excellent post by Bruzy, which may have been a Tweet, that alludes to the fact that2-3M bearings may even be a smaller sized run as to what is potentially emerging in Australia: http://investorshangout.com/post/view?id=3738346

I did not catch the part in which James mentioned updating month to month or quarter to quarter, so that I can't answer. What I can affirm is the fact that he mentioned 15-20 days, with those days being business days, not calendar days.

ChipTrader posted a great update yesterday in the form of an article about Ex-Im, what is happening and what is preventing the expedition of its resolution. It is well worth the read. It seems that, despite Ex-Im being circumvented by the companies via alternative financing, Ex-Im is still holding up the line due to the political constraints placed upon it by its respective governing entities. As I had questions in my DD packet under the Ongoing Concerns section as to why so much capital was needed, I now understand that better, as I have a clear picture that $7-9M in raw materials is needed to give BTL the tools to manufacture for the $13.5M/yr SLA. $85M now not only seems not too much to ask, but also, much needed, especially if we are looking to become a major international player within the next 36months, as mentioned by Muse, on Twitter.

I disagree a bit on the downplaying of Boeing. I believe that while it may take some time to land their account via us securing a few extra Chinese manufacturers(alongside BTL), Boeing is not only instrumental to us developing an international reputation, but is also on of the pivotal milestones that many here are waiting for news on. What I did appreciate was knowing that Boeing has changed their formatting of payment remittance, with TPAC being able to handle the change.

As for the PPS, I wish that the .01+ EOY estimate would have been either confirmed, or clearly modified. Clarity is confidence. And if .01+ still holds as a conservative barometer of future EOY price, that would be very good to know.

I am with you on the 90 reconstruction issue. My thoughts is that the CC would have been better timed just after the finalization of the plan, though I do agree with you that timing it at 45 days as a midpoint would have also been on target. I do believe that a lot of details, with specifics in the area of revenue projections in year by year format, etc.(through the end of 2018) will be disclosed and put to rest, with many updates being given out along the way, or more specifically, after the fact.

To address the price decline, I have also been watching the short volume, and have seen us repeatedly anywhere from the number one most shorted ticker to the fourth, etc. At least as of recent times, much of the short volume seems to be on alternating days, heavy shorting, light shorting and covering, rinse, repeat. The 70-80M new O/S to hit the market I believe is needed. I firmly believe that more will even be needed until we hit a critical turnaround point, with that being revenues from supply and manufacture being great enough to handle expansion, to pay officers, etc., and to restart a buyback plan to shrink the O/S as originally planned on the way back up before applying for NASDAQ, which may or may not utilize a properly timed R/S as a vehicle to do so. As long as the R/S is from a position of strength and can hold in range post-split, uplisting to NASDAQ would generally be a good thing, seeing as a whole new crop of investors would come in, due to the price point and mitigation of risk via volatility, and also soon to come would be the presence of institutional buyers and larger professional funds who may attempt to sponsor.

Again, great job on the overview and many thanks for the unbiased format, with both pros and cons included. Once all of us know what we have going for us and what we are up against, we can be more objective than emotional and can then calculate what the risks are and what the rewards are, both in proportion to one another. Emotions are needed as far as keeping a pulse on the market and on the sentiment driving the ticker, but unabated and blind, are often a recipe for ill-timed buying and selling. Through and through, I see our team getting stronger from month to month. It is clear as day that most of our long term holders know what they own.