"Wow, you'll call him out here, but not on Twitter
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 310)
Posted On: 03/30/2017 9:08:32 PM
Re: kmmohr1960 #18471
"Wow, you'll call him out here, but not on Twitter. Classy! "
Since they block anyone who asks questions - how is one supposed to have that debate on Twitter? Did Twitter ever figure out why they cant keep a thread going...?
They are absolutely reading this board. You are quoting tweets of theirs with quotes from this board. So dont give us the BS that he cant see questions here.
So why dont they answer this question that I and others on here and elsewhere have asked: what will 2017 revenues be?
I dont care if they call it expectations, guidance, forward looking statements. Simple question. Provide a range. We keep hearing about all the revenue MRVB is creating for the company and that it will be 90%+ of revenues. Start there - what will MRVB revenues expected to contribute to 2017? Two SLAs were signed. A consulting agreement. As far as I know - no EIAs have been announced as closed. They should have a run rate established for MRVBs at this point so what is protected revenue given current metrics? Will the two signed SLAs contribute to 2017 revs or not? A lot of activity with EIAs - can any of those be considered close enough to aggregately give an outlook?
With all of these fronts, it should be reasonable to put a range out there. The company did it prior based on expected ramp up before they even had signed contracts. If they were confident enough then why are they not confident enough when multiple revenues have started?
I questioned there $0.01 PPS immediately and was called a basher. I asked for details on how the company/IR expecting to impact that to make it happen (specifically reducing supply or driving demand). I asked for details on revenue ramp up that would help legitimize the signed contracts and would help on the demand side. Not a single poster on here offered any viable path to $0.01. I laid the numbers out on a P/s and PE basis on how many $MM in revenues with /without share reductions it would take to make that goal realizable. There was no path to realistically hit the revenue side unless they landed several, very large EIA deals and got up front money to hit in calendar year. Without revenues - they had no real cash flow to buyback shares to affect the supply side. So - where did the $0.01 PPS come from that they reiterated on numerous occasions and consistently refused to discuss HOW it was feasible. In the meantime - muse mocks shareholders for buying in the low trips based on a forward looking business plan with robust growth plans and a viable path to hit those growth #'s (NAVAIR cert in a captive market with an obvious tax/incentive discount for mfg locally) and then lectures them on PE ratios while they are pumping an unrealistic PPS.
So again - one question: what will 2017 TPAC revenues be?
Since they block anyone who asks questions - how is one supposed to have that debate on Twitter? Did Twitter ever figure out why they cant keep a thread going...?
They are absolutely reading this board. You are quoting tweets of theirs with quotes from this board. So dont give us the BS that he cant see questions here.
So why dont they answer this question that I and others on here and elsewhere have asked: what will 2017 revenues be?
I dont care if they call it expectations, guidance, forward looking statements. Simple question. Provide a range. We keep hearing about all the revenue MRVB is creating for the company and that it will be 90%+ of revenues. Start there - what will MRVB revenues expected to contribute to 2017? Two SLAs were signed. A consulting agreement. As far as I know - no EIAs have been announced as closed. They should have a run rate established for MRVBs at this point so what is protected revenue given current metrics? Will the two signed SLAs contribute to 2017 revs or not? A lot of activity with EIAs - can any of those be considered close enough to aggregately give an outlook?
With all of these fronts, it should be reasonable to put a range out there. The company did it prior based on expected ramp up before they even had signed contracts. If they were confident enough then why are they not confident enough when multiple revenues have started?
I questioned there $0.01 PPS immediately and was called a basher. I asked for details on how the company/IR expecting to impact that to make it happen (specifically reducing supply or driving demand). I asked for details on revenue ramp up that would help legitimize the signed contracts and would help on the demand side. Not a single poster on here offered any viable path to $0.01. I laid the numbers out on a P/s and PE basis on how many $MM in revenues with /without share reductions it would take to make that goal realizable. There was no path to realistically hit the revenue side unless they landed several, very large EIA deals and got up front money to hit in calendar year. Without revenues - they had no real cash flow to buyback shares to affect the supply side. So - where did the $0.01 PPS come from that they reiterated on numerous occasions and consistently refused to discuss HOW it was feasible. In the meantime - muse mocks shareholders for buying in the low trips based on a forward looking business plan with robust growth plans and a viable path to hit those growth #'s (NAVAIR cert in a captive market with an obvious tax/incentive discount for mfg locally) and then lectures them on PE ratios while they are pumping an unrealistic PPS.
So again - one question: what will 2017 TPAC revenues be?
(5)
(0)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼