I agree on the disruption and naked shorting. it a
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 1208)
Posted On: 02/16/2017 10:50:49 AM
I agree on the disruption and naked shorting. it absolutely exists and very difficult to police/enforce due to limited resources but more importantly - constantly evolving mechanisms/loopholes. once the SEC shuts down one form of manipulation another one pops up to takes its place. like any other business, investment, athletic competition - those that are the most successful will always look for a new/better way to stay ahead of the competition. some will do it legally and ethically and others wont. rules always lag as new ways of performing will be deemed illegal/unethical. those that are considered "innovative" will be left alone, soon replicated by the masses, and in the meantime, the innovators will be looking for a new way to get ahead.
i also believe a small, dedicated group went after Timken and BTL. it does little for Bill in the way of PR to bring this up if it didnt happen when he did. he mentioned BTL contacts before the PPS tanked and the Timken calls happened before any large runs. so - neither time would Bill have a reason to use this as an "excuse." further, if anyone listened to the last CC he conducted - it was completely interrupted by a small group for the first 5-10 minutes before he muted all. now - either Bill is a phenomenal actor or he was genuinely surprised/confounded by the attempts.
as far as defamation suits. good luck. one - they have to chase them down and get over the wall of privacy issues with boards/IPs. they will need to do this by proving actual "harm" to the company. that will be difficult to draw direct line of sight. it is a chicken and the egg. they need warrants to "prove" harm but they need the proof of harm to get the warrants. several companies have and are trying. other micro-caps/OTCs are currently battling some of the toxic lenders and message boards like iLie. if the company is serious - they should look at these cases and speak with these attorneys that have already done the legwork and spoken with state attorney generals.
But the biggest issue for long shareholders right now isnt bashing, BTL harassment, etc. the issue is and has remained for a long time supply and demand. there is simply more shares for sale then buyers want. this obviously has been greatly exacerbated by the dilution as OS more than doubled in 2016 (depending on where one marks the OS at end of 2015 when Bill was retiring shares and takes into account his filing error that he brought up). the other issue is and has remained new investors are not coming into the stock.
this is and remains a big rub for me and other large investors of TPAC that I speak with. it is also the conundrum IR faces in trying to lambast us or anyone else that questions them/asks for clarity. they have repeatedly tried to paint us as bashers and non shareholders even when Bill has been provided direct proof.
more importantly - their argument simply isnt logical: what motivation do we have in "bashing" the company as shareholders? since several of us that have been publicly attacked by IR have proven we are - then what financial incentive do we have? further - and here is where the logic really fails - why would we want a change in IR? right now - they provide endless fodder for bashing the company like with their $0.01PPS price targets that they failed to provide line of sight to get there or discuss why the goal failed.
i and others have asked for routine, concise updates on normal PR channels on major contracts, guidance etc. this is the fastest and most far reaching mechanism to getting one's story out to the investor masses. new investors ultimately are what drive demand and overcome supply (whether due to dilution, shorting, or investors that are moving on). sure, you will get the normal flippers and OTC spikes but you will also get those that do their own DD and assign real value to the organization and take long term positions and ignore the noise and volatility that exposure provides. we have also suggested investor CCs with the company where all questions and answers were in real time in a full disclosure format where no misinformation or rumors could be manufactured and spread across the message boards for further fodder for the naked shorts.
however, instead, we get an IR group that attacks shareholders, urges most to sell while giving mixed signals on whether the stock is a buy, hold, or sell. they mock shareholders for buying a company with no value while putting a PPS target several orders of magnitude of where it was at while also completely ignoring the fundamentals they were giving limited guidance to in the process while they are mocking long term investors for doing the same. as an example - the last CC suggested limited revenues from BTL that might begin 4Q16 and also hopeful on EIA revenues starting in 4Q. up until they changed the guidance from $0.01 year end to $0.03-0.05 in 12-36 months - they were only confirming less than $1MM in revenues that MIGHT be booked in the 4Q. so - how do they get $0.01 PPS on $1MM of revenues when there are 4BB shares plus and a market cap at the time around $4.8MM (assuming 4BB and share price around $0.0012 when it changed)? at 10X sales - at most that share price might have doubled that price point around $0.0025. where did the $0.01PPS price target come from? higher revenues? lower OS?
if i or others were bashing the company - why would we ask for answers on questions above instead of just harping on the absurdity of the $0.01PPS target to begin with? several of us were adamant about NOT giving PPS predictions like this (including the updated $0.03-0.05) due to the negative impact on missing (let alone missing that badly). why would we ask for general revenue guidance instead of just attacking the past revenue misses? why would we ask for explanations on reconstruction relative to original business plan instead of going after aggressive growth that Bill outlined on the NAVAIR side? why would we continue to ask about the mfg side of the business when IR does nothing but hype MRVB and downplay the bearing side even when Bill confirms on Twitter that it remains important to him and the company?
this board had few negative posters until IR came aboard and VNDM started showing up on the ASK. the conduit to Bill and straightforward Q&A was replaced with nebulous explanations and pie in the sky predictions about revenues (at the time - EIA and constant insistence on $135MM BTL contract was in place and $13.5MM/year for 10 years was guaranteed). as shareholders started questioning some of the numbers and also asking for explanations on the ballooning OS - IR got negative and went into attack mode no Twitter and it has been downhill since.
despite their constant attacks, missed targets, refusal to answer basic questions, bouncing shareholders to Bill directly, etc - those that I speak to remain positive about Bill/engagement in the business. now, if we were truly bashers - would would be the motivation? why not simply attack Bill as well? IR has tweeted this week that IR is Bill and vice versa but they have both made it clear that they are completely separate entities (even though they are directly coupled with respect to insider status as explained in previous posts). Bill had to ask a shareholder on Twitter what a NWE was just last week. I agree that Bill is fed up with the attacks but he should also be fed up with IR giving shareholders constant fodder to be irate with the company in the first place (let alone that of real bashers working for naked shorters).
someone posted earlier about Apple would never put up with shareholder questions in this fashion. take a look at Apple's corporate twitter feed (or any Fortune 500 company for that matter) and show me ONE example of them (or any other company) attacking shareholders constantly let alone the simply atrocious grammar/syntax in doing so. since that is the primary interface (at this juncture) for potential new investors (as last PRs had their email/twitter feeds listed as IR contacts for the company) - how are we supposed to increase our investor base and bring in new, long term capital when they are immediately turned off before they ever get into hard core DD? why would they even bother emailing IR further when attacked on Twitter for innocently asking a question and being called dumb or stupid for doing so?
we are not the pot stirrers. we are simply voicing are dissatisfaction with the IR interface the company has chosen. if IR has a problem with that - they should reach out and build bridges instead of using napalm to forge relationships. if they refuse to do so (and so far they have with those i know that have expressed the same sentiments), they could make a major start by using their Twitter feed (which is generally considered the disclosure source of the company per IR/filings) as general information exchange, update shareholders/potential investors at large on the daily/weekly/monthly success of MRVB/company dealings in short, concise, number specific tweets that doesnt look like it was done by middle school students having an argument. the default argument is this is all available by emailing IR, joining this group or that group, and now being part of ARC. but for those that dont need/want the minutia or just looking for specifics and then visit the ARC/email the company for more information - it would be prudent. isnt the long term goal increasing PPS for all shareholders through widening the investor base with long term holders who are investing not only on fundamentals TODAY but expected fundamentals in the future? however, if the goal is to drive the price down to scoop up shares at rock bottom price by MRVB - who is manipulating who? much worse if they are working against shareholders interest by working in direct concert with naked shorters to maximize profit potential on the preferred shares by eroding investor confidence and getting long term shareholders to sell.
so IR can continue to call me and others "stoopid", dumb dumbs, etc but the reality is clearly the opposite for those willing to dig into the details, look at the past history, price history, company fundamentals, and claims/targets by IR. we are not the ones making the company look juvenile and an investment joke. we are not the ones dragging a reputation/image through the OTC muck with middle school theatrics.
all shareholders should demand better from IR. they should demand professionalism and quit giving them an "excuse." while there are professional bashers out there that certainly deserve to be attacked/sued - the official IR Twitter account is not the place. would love to see the company be successful on defamation suits but right now - they would be better served getting revenue up and sustainable through all fronts (mfg/SLAs, EIA, MRVB) and letting improving fundamentals, realized guidance, and increasing top lines drive investor confidence and drive PPS. THAT is the best medicine to rid the power/disruptive abilities of the professional shorters/bashers. not trying to blame me and others for failed goals/missed targets.
i also believe a small, dedicated group went after Timken and BTL. it does little for Bill in the way of PR to bring this up if it didnt happen when he did. he mentioned BTL contacts before the PPS tanked and the Timken calls happened before any large runs. so - neither time would Bill have a reason to use this as an "excuse." further, if anyone listened to the last CC he conducted - it was completely interrupted by a small group for the first 5-10 minutes before he muted all. now - either Bill is a phenomenal actor or he was genuinely surprised/confounded by the attempts.
as far as defamation suits. good luck. one - they have to chase them down and get over the wall of privacy issues with boards/IPs. they will need to do this by proving actual "harm" to the company. that will be difficult to draw direct line of sight. it is a chicken and the egg. they need warrants to "prove" harm but they need the proof of harm to get the warrants. several companies have and are trying. other micro-caps/OTCs are currently battling some of the toxic lenders and message boards like iLie. if the company is serious - they should look at these cases and speak with these attorneys that have already done the legwork and spoken with state attorney generals.
But the biggest issue for long shareholders right now isnt bashing, BTL harassment, etc. the issue is and has remained for a long time supply and demand. there is simply more shares for sale then buyers want. this obviously has been greatly exacerbated by the dilution as OS more than doubled in 2016 (depending on where one marks the OS at end of 2015 when Bill was retiring shares and takes into account his filing error that he brought up). the other issue is and has remained new investors are not coming into the stock.
this is and remains a big rub for me and other large investors of TPAC that I speak with. it is also the conundrum IR faces in trying to lambast us or anyone else that questions them/asks for clarity. they have repeatedly tried to paint us as bashers and non shareholders even when Bill has been provided direct proof.
more importantly - their argument simply isnt logical: what motivation do we have in "bashing" the company as shareholders? since several of us that have been publicly attacked by IR have proven we are - then what financial incentive do we have? further - and here is where the logic really fails - why would we want a change in IR? right now - they provide endless fodder for bashing the company like with their $0.01PPS price targets that they failed to provide line of sight to get there or discuss why the goal failed.
i and others have asked for routine, concise updates on normal PR channels on major contracts, guidance etc. this is the fastest and most far reaching mechanism to getting one's story out to the investor masses. new investors ultimately are what drive demand and overcome supply (whether due to dilution, shorting, or investors that are moving on). sure, you will get the normal flippers and OTC spikes but you will also get those that do their own DD and assign real value to the organization and take long term positions and ignore the noise and volatility that exposure provides. we have also suggested investor CCs with the company where all questions and answers were in real time in a full disclosure format where no misinformation or rumors could be manufactured and spread across the message boards for further fodder for the naked shorts.
however, instead, we get an IR group that attacks shareholders, urges most to sell while giving mixed signals on whether the stock is a buy, hold, or sell. they mock shareholders for buying a company with no value while putting a PPS target several orders of magnitude of where it was at while also completely ignoring the fundamentals they were giving limited guidance to in the process while they are mocking long term investors for doing the same. as an example - the last CC suggested limited revenues from BTL that might begin 4Q16 and also hopeful on EIA revenues starting in 4Q. up until they changed the guidance from $0.01 year end to $0.03-0.05 in 12-36 months - they were only confirming less than $1MM in revenues that MIGHT be booked in the 4Q. so - how do they get $0.01 PPS on $1MM of revenues when there are 4BB shares plus and a market cap at the time around $4.8MM (assuming 4BB and share price around $0.0012 when it changed)? at 10X sales - at most that share price might have doubled that price point around $0.0025. where did the $0.01PPS price target come from? higher revenues? lower OS?
if i or others were bashing the company - why would we ask for answers on questions above instead of just harping on the absurdity of the $0.01PPS target to begin with? several of us were adamant about NOT giving PPS predictions like this (including the updated $0.03-0.05) due to the negative impact on missing (let alone missing that badly). why would we ask for general revenue guidance instead of just attacking the past revenue misses? why would we ask for explanations on reconstruction relative to original business plan instead of going after aggressive growth that Bill outlined on the NAVAIR side? why would we continue to ask about the mfg side of the business when IR does nothing but hype MRVB and downplay the bearing side even when Bill confirms on Twitter that it remains important to him and the company?
this board had few negative posters until IR came aboard and VNDM started showing up on the ASK. the conduit to Bill and straightforward Q&A was replaced with nebulous explanations and pie in the sky predictions about revenues (at the time - EIA and constant insistence on $135MM BTL contract was in place and $13.5MM/year for 10 years was guaranteed). as shareholders started questioning some of the numbers and also asking for explanations on the ballooning OS - IR got negative and went into attack mode no Twitter and it has been downhill since.
despite their constant attacks, missed targets, refusal to answer basic questions, bouncing shareholders to Bill directly, etc - those that I speak to remain positive about Bill/engagement in the business. now, if we were truly bashers - would would be the motivation? why not simply attack Bill as well? IR has tweeted this week that IR is Bill and vice versa but they have both made it clear that they are completely separate entities (even though they are directly coupled with respect to insider status as explained in previous posts). Bill had to ask a shareholder on Twitter what a NWE was just last week. I agree that Bill is fed up with the attacks but he should also be fed up with IR giving shareholders constant fodder to be irate with the company in the first place (let alone that of real bashers working for naked shorters).
someone posted earlier about Apple would never put up with shareholder questions in this fashion. take a look at Apple's corporate twitter feed (or any Fortune 500 company for that matter) and show me ONE example of them (or any other company) attacking shareholders constantly let alone the simply atrocious grammar/syntax in doing so. since that is the primary interface (at this juncture) for potential new investors (as last PRs had their email/twitter feeds listed as IR contacts for the company) - how are we supposed to increase our investor base and bring in new, long term capital when they are immediately turned off before they ever get into hard core DD? why would they even bother emailing IR further when attacked on Twitter for innocently asking a question and being called dumb or stupid for doing so?
we are not the pot stirrers. we are simply voicing are dissatisfaction with the IR interface the company has chosen. if IR has a problem with that - they should reach out and build bridges instead of using napalm to forge relationships. if they refuse to do so (and so far they have with those i know that have expressed the same sentiments), they could make a major start by using their Twitter feed (which is generally considered the disclosure source of the company per IR/filings) as general information exchange, update shareholders/potential investors at large on the daily/weekly/monthly success of MRVB/company dealings in short, concise, number specific tweets that doesnt look like it was done by middle school students having an argument. the default argument is this is all available by emailing IR, joining this group or that group, and now being part of ARC. but for those that dont need/want the minutia or just looking for specifics and then visit the ARC/email the company for more information - it would be prudent. isnt the long term goal increasing PPS for all shareholders through widening the investor base with long term holders who are investing not only on fundamentals TODAY but expected fundamentals in the future? however, if the goal is to drive the price down to scoop up shares at rock bottom price by MRVB - who is manipulating who? much worse if they are working against shareholders interest by working in direct concert with naked shorters to maximize profit potential on the preferred shares by eroding investor confidence and getting long term shareholders to sell.
so IR can continue to call me and others "stoopid", dumb dumbs, etc but the reality is clearly the opposite for those willing to dig into the details, look at the past history, price history, company fundamentals, and claims/targets by IR. we are not the ones making the company look juvenile and an investment joke. we are not the ones dragging a reputation/image through the OTC muck with middle school theatrics.
all shareholders should demand better from IR. they should demand professionalism and quit giving them an "excuse." while there are professional bashers out there that certainly deserve to be attacked/sued - the official IR Twitter account is not the place. would love to see the company be successful on defamation suits but right now - they would be better served getting revenue up and sustainable through all fronts (mfg/SLAs, EIA, MRVB) and letting improving fundamentals, realized guidance, and increasing top lines drive investor confidence and drive PPS. THAT is the best medicine to rid the power/disruptive abilities of the professional shorters/bashers. not trying to blame me and others for failed goals/missed targets.
(13)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼