Smalls, You're going off the old 2015 business
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 490)
Posted On: 01/01/2017 11:41:38 PM
Smalls,
You're going off the old 2015 business plan. - http://tpacbearings.com/sites/default/files/t...n-2015.pdf , in which the plan depicted TPAC as a manufacturer rather than distributor of lubricated spherical bearings and other misc aerospace parts.
Most of that business plan was dependent on EX-IM financing in excess of 10 million or a AVIC JV with terms favorable to TPAC going through. Neither of which happened. Also, the industry has been unfavorable to Boeing lately lets not forget that. We all know why EX-IM financing in excess of 10 million failed, and it was due to the lack of a 3rd rep sitting for the quorum. There was a big push in sep / oct 2016 in the aerospace industry & congress with EX-IM quorum reform led by a group called 'Exporters for EX-IM ' backed by companies such as Boeing, the push ended up failing.
Buying out the BTL facility would have required $16-21 million, money which TPAC didn't have and failed to acquire in 2015 / 2016 due to EX-IM restraints.
The only source of significant funding TPAC could have pursued and probably acquired was up to $10 million from EX-IM, and if I recall correctly, the company was waiting for congress to make revisions to the quorum rules. Even when congress failed to act, we were then waiting on the elections and then trying to determine what the future looked like from there. I think it's still up in the air, with Trump coming in office this month - on what he'll do regarding EX-IM & how soon he'll act on it. I think he has other priorities at the moment.. Anyways, if TPAC were able to have acquired the 10 million in financing, it probably could have started production on the BTL SLA a lot sooner and have maybe realized the revenues you specified.
Regarding EX-IM, I think Bill is going to take the 10 million - and complete the material move to BTL - (* if he hasn't already *). The costs of the SLA with that financing would be covered for some time.
The $.01 EOY PPS goal was IMO strongly dependent on landing financing.I'm providing the following quote from a shareholder newsletter issued by IR titled 'TPAC IPPS'
Addressing your next topic:
Excluding private party transactions - See Q #9 in the following link: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm , regular buyback transactions such as shares removed from the float - all require a company to follow 10b-18 SEC regs. , A company / shareholder can only purchase or sell 25% of the daily ADTV.
If Bill can somehow buy up as many shares in private party transactions / series C conversions as he can, he can expedite the process. As he won't be bound by the ADTV rules. However, once we get a billion or two of shares removed & active market trade interest - volatility is going to be restored to the stock and the ADTV won't be as much of a problem as it is now.. Bill has the option of pursuing an 'ASR' - accelerated share repurchase down the road if he needs to speed things up. -http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accelerated-share-repurchase.asp
So in conclusion all we can do is wait at this point, and see if Bill is going to meet the goals stated on the 2016 timeline. I'm optimistic a turn around is on the horizon..
On a positive 'completely unrelated' note, we won't have to worry about TPAC being suspended by the SEC for delinquent filing of SEC reports & failure to maintain a valid business address.. Luckily TPAC is SEC Current & has a real business address - NOT a P.O Box like most OTC tickers.. LOL. . .
SM
imo
You're going off the old 2015 business plan. - http://tpacbearings.com/sites/default/files/t...n-2015.pdf , in which the plan depicted TPAC as a manufacturer rather than distributor of lubricated spherical bearings and other misc aerospace parts.
Most of that business plan was dependent on EX-IM financing in excess of 10 million or a AVIC JV with terms favorable to TPAC going through. Neither of which happened. Also, the industry has been unfavorable to Boeing lately lets not forget that. We all know why EX-IM financing in excess of 10 million failed, and it was due to the lack of a 3rd rep sitting for the quorum. There was a big push in sep / oct 2016 in the aerospace industry & congress with EX-IM quorum reform led by a group called 'Exporters for EX-IM ' backed by companies such as Boeing, the push ended up failing.
Buying out the BTL facility would have required $16-21 million, money which TPAC didn't have and failed to acquire in 2015 / 2016 due to EX-IM restraints.
The only source of significant funding TPAC could have pursued and probably acquired was up to $10 million from EX-IM, and if I recall correctly, the company was waiting for congress to make revisions to the quorum rules. Even when congress failed to act, we were then waiting on the elections and then trying to determine what the future looked like from there. I think it's still up in the air, with Trump coming in office this month - on what he'll do regarding EX-IM & how soon he'll act on it. I think he has other priorities at the moment.. Anyways, if TPAC were able to have acquired the 10 million in financing, it probably could have started production on the BTL SLA a lot sooner and have maybe realized the revenues you specified.
Regarding EX-IM, I think Bill is going to take the 10 million - and complete the material move to BTL - (* if he hasn't already *). The costs of the SLA with that financing would be covered for some time.
The $.01 EOY PPS goal was IMO strongly dependent on landing financing.I'm providing the following quote from a shareholder newsletter issued by IR titled 'TPAC IPPS'
Quote:
Shareholders were provided this outlook and IPPS formula in the beginning: Retained earnings - Dividends/Outstanding Shares. There are no dividends so let’s run the numbers.
$85M from loan moves to MRVB as cash-on-hand; Retained Earning/Total OS (4B rounded up just for easy calculations) = .021 (this is before any share reduction ). Just based on the loan becoming cash-on-hand, the IPPS value goes sky-high.
Addressing your next topic:
Quote:
$0.01 PPS goal year end 2016 is replaced with $0.05 in three years. 1BB OS (per Bill in late 2015 /early 2016) was replaced with 700MM (per James in CC past fall) within 6-8 months of CC. Now that has been replaced with 70% of 4.5BB in 3 years.
Excluding private party transactions - See Q #9 in the following link: https://www.sec.gov/divisions/marketreg/r10b18faq0504.htm , regular buyback transactions such as shares removed from the float - all require a company to follow 10b-18 SEC regs. , A company / shareholder can only purchase or sell 25% of the daily ADTV.
If Bill can somehow buy up as many shares in private party transactions / series C conversions as he can, he can expedite the process. As he won't be bound by the ADTV rules. However, once we get a billion or two of shares removed & active market trade interest - volatility is going to be restored to the stock and the ADTV won't be as much of a problem as it is now.. Bill has the option of pursuing an 'ASR' - accelerated share repurchase down the road if he needs to speed things up. -http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/accelerated-share-repurchase.asp
So in conclusion all we can do is wait at this point, and see if Bill is going to meet the goals stated on the 2016 timeline. I'm optimistic a turn around is on the horizon..
On a positive 'completely unrelated' note, we won't have to worry about TPAC being suspended by the SEC for delinquent filing of SEC reports & failure to maintain a valid business address.. Luckily TPAC is SEC Current & has a real business address - NOT a P.O Box like most OTC tickers.. LOL. . .
SM
imo
(4)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼