TPAC Saturday Email Greetings. IR received thi
Post# of 22940
Posted On: 09/03/2016 7:04:39 PM
TPAC Saturday Email Greetings.
IR received this screenshot, from a TPAC Shareholder, of an Investors Hub post -- which many may have seen. For a response to this IHub alias, we went directly to IR James
IR MANAGER JAMES’ RESPONSE TO IHUB POST
The post would be making a valid point if he were not taking my words out of context.
The EXIM bank applications were processed approximately 50 days ago.
The applications request were for machinery and supplies for two manufacturing conditions: China and TPAC Australia.
So this is what the $85M USD is slated for. Now these applications have already been processed however TPAC does not want to move on the $10M USD loan. It will wait and see how the EXIM bank nomination issue plays out.
Here is where the confusion comes in: TPACs position has improved. Again, it has signed a contract valued at $13.5M USD/year, 2 Licensing Agreements valued at $1M USD each and the means to provided machinery from the other factory with some base supplies. Australia is coming up in 2017. So TPACs reasoning is valid for continued processing of the applications. This is the first thing the IHub post is off point on.
Also the MRVB is TPACs bank --depositing the currency there is normal. The currency is working capital…normal and how TPAC determines it use…all normal. The facilities to be constructed are still here.
Secondly, the post referenced payment -- again the confusion is loan type and loan period. TPAC is in a program and in that it also has its own banking system using an EXIM bank to (follow the word) guarantee through the China government – a different process so there is not a ten year standard anything. The figures were provided and that is what it is -- he was just confused.
Listen TPAC Shareholders – IHub subscribers are seriously aggressive (nothing wrong with that) however if you listen to everything they have stated about TPAC over the past 80 to 90 days their points are off target. They have branded TPAC as a pump and dump, however it was revealed it was members in their camp responsible for lowering the TPAC share price. Many have seen the emails/posts directly relating to this scheme from these individuals a few others. It wasn’t TPAC causing price drops but they stated it was.
Since integrating with TPAC 90 days ago, I have not seen anything that warrants such negative attention especially since most of them say they are shareholders. It seems very strange to knock your own stock and if you don’t own the stock why comment at all. If they want to twist my words and call me names --- I have no worries about any of that. My worry (which is a pleasure) is raising the core value of Trans-Pacific Aerospace.
This iHUB alias wants attention. He wants TPAC to respond so a back and forth can be engaged. This is a ploy to get more information to use to bring the stock down or create volatility within the community. I ask each TPAC Shareholder (long term to new) to think about the core of the company. Value is the answer here -- Q’s, K’s and retained earnings is all you need to focus on.
IR received this screenshot, from a TPAC Shareholder, of an Investors Hub post -- which many may have seen. For a response to this IHub alias, we went directly to IR James
IR MANAGER JAMES’ RESPONSE TO IHUB POST
The post would be making a valid point if he were not taking my words out of context.
The EXIM bank applications were processed approximately 50 days ago.
The applications request were for machinery and supplies for two manufacturing conditions: China and TPAC Australia.
So this is what the $85M USD is slated for. Now these applications have already been processed however TPAC does not want to move on the $10M USD loan. It will wait and see how the EXIM bank nomination issue plays out.
Here is where the confusion comes in: TPACs position has improved. Again, it has signed a contract valued at $13.5M USD/year, 2 Licensing Agreements valued at $1M USD each and the means to provided machinery from the other factory with some base supplies. Australia is coming up in 2017. So TPACs reasoning is valid for continued processing of the applications. This is the first thing the IHub post is off point on.
Also the MRVB is TPACs bank --depositing the currency there is normal. The currency is working capital…normal and how TPAC determines it use…all normal. The facilities to be constructed are still here.
Secondly, the post referenced payment -- again the confusion is loan type and loan period. TPAC is in a program and in that it also has its own banking system using an EXIM bank to (follow the word) guarantee through the China government – a different process so there is not a ten year standard anything. The figures were provided and that is what it is -- he was just confused.
Listen TPAC Shareholders – IHub subscribers are seriously aggressive (nothing wrong with that) however if you listen to everything they have stated about TPAC over the past 80 to 90 days their points are off target. They have branded TPAC as a pump and dump, however it was revealed it was members in their camp responsible for lowering the TPAC share price. Many have seen the emails/posts directly relating to this scheme from these individuals a few others. It wasn’t TPAC causing price drops but they stated it was.
Since integrating with TPAC 90 days ago, I have not seen anything that warrants such negative attention especially since most of them say they are shareholders. It seems very strange to knock your own stock and if you don’t own the stock why comment at all. If they want to twist my words and call me names --- I have no worries about any of that. My worry (which is a pleasure) is raising the core value of Trans-Pacific Aerospace.
This iHUB alias wants attention. He wants TPAC to respond so a back and forth can be engaged. This is a ploy to get more information to use to bring the stock down or create volatility within the community. I ask each TPAC Shareholder (long term to new) to think about the core of the company. Value is the answer here -- Q’s, K’s and retained earnings is all you need to focus on.
(2)
(1)