IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL POSTS DIRECTED AT ME Bil
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 1955)
Posted On: 05/15/2017 11:25:33 PM
IN RESPONSE TO SEVERAL POSTS DIRECTED AT ME
Bill – I started responding to your prior posts in detail and addressing each point, misstatement, or error but it really ended up missing the cusp of the issue. Why? Primarily your premise for posting/responding to my posts is completely off. Now, I really don’t know if your premise is off due to James poisoning the well early on, cognitive dissonance, or if I just misjudged you and your intentions that poorly. Doesn’t matter at this juncture. However, I will continue this response to tell you (and others) why that premise is off and why the rest of your accusations/assumptions are likewise off. You can casually dismiss it or take it to heart as there are several other shareholders with very similar sentiments, frustrations, and more than fed up with the way they have been treated as shareholders.
Did you do any due diligence on the entirety of my posts with respect to TPAC? Specifically on the iHang board before attacking me? Did you go back to the start and look at the transformation and where the posts turned negative? Did any of the shareholder comments/concerns with the choice of James/IR as the investor relations function of TPAC sink in?
We spoke live on the phone probably 6 times in addition to the various text and email “conversations.” Some of those coincided and two of the phone conversations were follow ups to conversations we had just had. Our first conversations were prior to James/IR and those weren’t referenced. The only ones that seem to stick out/you recall are post IR and specifically about the issues with IR.
To clear up your misconceptions – I NEVER specifically asked you for inside information or in any way tried to get you to divulge information in a nefarious manner as which your posts insinuated. Several times you told me that what I was asking for (which was direct followup for clarification on what was being PRd/tweeted about) was inside information or hadn’t been previously disclosed. I asked if it would be. In some situations you said it may and others you said it wouldn’t be (like the BTL contract). To say or imply otherwise is simply false. We actually had a conversation on inside information and the general misunderstanding of having access to it and acting upon it.
Yes I did repeatedly ask you via phone, text, email, and SM about revenues. I do that with any mgmt/fiduciary of companies I invest in trying to understand the timelines and likelihood between what is announced/PRd and reality with respect to the business environment. You pushed back and took issue with my insistence. I followed up the importance of getting out in front of the shareholders since IR was talking about large contracts (BTL SLA for $135MM) that were not being followed up by the company or in any official PR. MANY shareholders bought/increased positions based on those numbers as it seemed to be a ratification of not only the earlier business plan concepts but the newly “reconstructed” company after the 90 days transitioning from a manufacturer to an SLA provider and the cost/time benefit of being so. However, while James was adamant that the $13.5MM/year was guaranteed in the conference call – shareholders could not get confirmation from the company/you that it was as concrete as James shared on the CC and in repeated tweets following up to the CC and afterwards. Further, the EIA contracts being thrown out (primarily in social media but also through some limited detail PRs/NEW) were throwing out some ridiculously large numbers ($BB for a company that had no revenues) and the disconnect between floating these for a company with no cash flow needed clarification.
As far as James/IR – they refused to provide a phone number early on. I asked several times as their emails became more inflammatory/accusatory (several of which you were CCd on). They refused to provide one saying it was none of my business. When we spoke on the phone (prior to the two times you referred to in your posts), I asked for a phone number to speak with James/IR (at that point – I didn’t know who was responding to the emails). You and I discussed the importance of speaking by phone when conversations go sideways in emails/texts in one of those two calls you did reference. I asked you for the phone number so I could speak with them and stop the escalation that was occurring via email. You said you were not going to provide a phone number due to past issues with shareholders harassing people (primarily Timken at that point). We then discussed your prior conference call and the group trying to disrupt that call. It was after that call that IR/Muse started attacking me in the public forum as well as starting blocking shareholders.
When we had the follow up call about the blocking which was the 1st call you referenced (and after we had spoken several times on the phone prior), I was NOT asking you for a "favor" to get me unblocked. We discussed their treatment of shareholders and I addressed that it was damaging brand/credibility and flirting with (if not completely violating) SEC disclosure rules about selective disclosure since the company chose them as the IR source and was using Twitter as an official news/information dissemination platform. You disagreed and said they were completely separate. I asked how they could be when using the same domain and were referenced as the IR contact on PRs? You said they were contracted but not part of the company. I asked what the discernible difference was for shareholders. Either way, you agreed to speak to James to discuss the blocking (and not just the blocking of me).
On the original phone call where you and I discussed James/IR and my issues with them – you told me specifically on the phone that another shareholder had recommended this group for Investor Relations and that you previously had no/limited success with PR firms that you had hired – that they were just looking for money/shares and not interested in really doing PR (something along those lines). We discussed that James’ group was not a traditional PR outfit and you explained in some detail what their group and the doors they were opening (such as EIA opps) despite some of the difficulties in working with them (such as your conversations with them or their treatment of shareholders).
In the original conversation about IR – I also asked how they were compensated and you said you wouldn’t answer that. You said it wasn’t important for shareholders and that I didn’t have a right to ask. I countered with being a shareholder that any money the company spent was being spent by the shareholders and it was important to understand if their interests and ours were aligned. You took exception to that point and that led into our discussion on the OTC in general with respects to expectations of short term shareholders/flippers, bashers, toxic debt, and message boards. I made some suggestions in terms of communication with shareholders in general (specifically those that were long term holders and NOT the day traders) and emphasized the impact your original CC had on them. At that time you told me that there were only 6-12 large shareholders like myself that seemed interested in that information and that they called with questions. I told you at that time (and will still give you credit as I have in the past) that you did make yourself available for these calls/questions but the conversation went back to disclosure. I said that individual calls did not allow for some of the pertinent questions/discussion specifically around revenues (which are key for start ups or those transitioning out of R&D stage). You said you understood and would consider that going forward.
You refused to discuss their compensation as I addressed above but you did say along the lines that they would do very well if the company did well. You said you learned to tie these groups to performance (as you said past PR/IR groups just took the money/shares/options and ran). Since the stock is trading WELL below when they started ($0.0002 and it was around $0.0016-0.0018 when they started) and there are close to 3 times as many outstanding shares – I have to question whether that statement still stands since their contract has ended. In hindsight, I would argue my wanting to know the general tenets of their compensations were not only valid but also could have allowed several shareholders (including myself) to react/respond differently had that been more transparent especially in light of the way they treated shareholders both publicly and privately.
With respect to the above – there was never any “bluster” or me telling you how to run the company. That again is either due to the poisoning of the well or narrative after the fact. We had several in depth discussion about the bashers on iLie, unrealistic shareholder expectations or questions (specifically around putting out share price targets which I will address later), and your consistent insistence that this was a long term endeavor (which led into discussion on some of your professional contacts/potential competitors wondering how you were able to achieve NAVAIR status in not only as short of time as you did but at a reduced cost – you told me one had $8MM (if memory serves – I didn’t have the exact number in my notes – just $MM)). I agreed that it was a long term endeavor and that is when we discussed the original business plan targets in some detail. You couldn’t go into much due to disclosure but at that point – it wasn’t an issue. At no time did I tell you how to run your business or bluster about.
As far as arrogance – using specific models for risk/reward and trying to validate those with those that have intimate knowledge of likelihood of success is not being arrogant. Me telling you about my background in investing/professionally background was not being arrogant. It was providing a basis/premise for my questions (both in nature and in tone). I never invited you to BBQs or any of that BS you referenced with spuds. Was I friendly – yes. Was I cordial – yes. Is that common sense when speaking with someone and getting to know them – yes. Go back and read my posts from the beginning. Note how many times I suggested shareholders contact you directly and that you had always made yourself available to me through various channels (even after your first lambasting of me on here I noted in my reply that you were accessible). And yes our last conversation was “heated.” At least – when someone is yelling at me on the phone and accusing me of going around their back or pushing them too far – I consider that “heated.” If you don’t – then we can apply whatever adjective you want.
However, in that last conversation, you were pissed about the first conversation you referenced (when we discussed disclosure and you said you would speak with James) and then about a subsequent text conversation when you responded that you would not provide the information I was requesting. I countered with it being critical for shareholders specifically due to the disconnect between what IR/Muse was tweeting and you replied that you wouldn’t because it was inside information. I then asked you via Twitter which you then texted me back and accused me of pushing you which is ultimately what prompted what ended up being our last phone call. I asked to speak by phone as the text conversation was going sideways. You agreed and we spoke in which you yelled at me for the original James blocking and then trying to go around you on Twitter and putting you on the spot. Just like on my reply to your original iHang post – I told you on the phone that was NOT my intent. I apologized for that and said my understanding of your text reply was that you could not answer the question as it was inside and would be selective disclosure. Since I prefaced the original question (s) as coming from me and shareholders in the group which I spoke with – I sent you the tweet so it was in the public domain and could be responded to appropriately. Again, I apologized immediately by phone for the misunderstanding and you seemed to have accepted my apology as you understood my intent after explanation. You did say you were still not going to address it publicly and I said that was fine.
As far as the first phone call you referenced with the blocking/disclosure – I also briefly addressed that in my reply to your first iHang post. You said you would follow up with James and we left it that. Shortly thereafter (I would have to check but it was within the hour), James replied to my email with some sarcastic comments and I replied back and CC’d you. You were incensed that I didn’t give you time to follow up with him. I called you then to explain the chain of emails (which you had not read). It certainly appeared to me that James was responding to the conversation that you had with me with respect to blocking shareholders. After we spoke by phone – it was clear it was coincidental timing his reply to my email with respect to the phone conversation you and I just had. When I sent him my reply before you and I spoke – it occurred to me that there was no use continuing down that path and that is when I asked to speak with you to clear it up (this was after his emails/tweets became inflammatory in general). When he replied – it didn’t occur to me that he was responding in kind and NOT after speaking with you. The verbiage in his reply made it appear that he had JUST spoken with you – not that he had spoken prior about blocking shareholders. Considering the inflammatory responses prior from him – it wasn’t a stretch for me to assume that he had just gotten off the phone with you as a follow up to the conversation you and I just had. We both jumped to conclusions at several points over the last 6-9 months. I apologized both times on my end.
While we both have had our frustrations and jumped to conclusions – I stand behind my comments and others with respect to a large amount of this was self induced through the reluctance of reeling in IR/Muse earlier. It is rather trite accusing me of being “arrogant” when your own IR group publicly attacks ANY shareholder or potential investor for “questioning” their information or asking for clarification. They have repeatedly gone out of their way telling everyone how successful MRVB is, their ARC, etc yet there are ZERO public, verifiable results. After the way they treated me and others (including the harassing phone calls I shared with you), why in the world would I entrust them with any further information let alone capital?
As far as sending you my statement – your tone is disingenuous as best when you concede it “may have” been from my account. You are absolutely correct you did NOT ask for it. However, I did NOT share it out of bluster, self importance, ego, or impact – YOU directly questioned whether or not I was even a shareholder as you SPECIFICALLY told me James said I was NOT and was part of the iLie crew. I IMMEDIATELY sent you a screenshot of the account with my NAME on it to verify not only that I was a shareholder but also I wasn’t a daytrader looking for a quick flip (at that time – the daily average was well below my holdings and it would have been very difficult to liquidate without completely tanking price). No you didn’t ask for it. But you did directly challenge my standing as a shareholder not to mention my integrity (with respect to questioning James/IR and how they were connected to the company). It was clearly from my account as I sent it immediately after you questions my standing and it was sent as a clear rebuke to the narrative that James/IR was providing you (or that you were providing me from them).
Going back to revenues – the company still hasn’t addressed the major disconnect between the $135MM BTL SLA that James/IR discussed on CC and repeatedly in tweets and where that stands. You did mention in your posts that there will be revenues this year and that the company is growing which remains positive. However, in light of the failures last year and the treatment of shareholders by IR/Muse for asking basic questions or trying to get clarification on something as simple as the “guaranteed” $13.5MM/year for 10 year as a baseline for revenues going forward – is it a stretch to think shareholder may “question” the legitimacy or veracity of those “revenues” you referenced? In both private and public comments – I emphasized that long term shareholders wouldn’t crucify company for missing guidance as long as there was solid rationale and the company was continuing to move forward long term. Right now, I would argue shareholders can ask those questions without being “abusive.” The company has so far not addressed that major disconnect with the $135MM BTL SLA or the $1MM SLA that was signed/PRd towards the end of 2016. Now they are supposed to digest and accept $10MM+ in revenues selling ebikes as a distributor…?
To address your comments about me only caring about bearings – that again is false as would be evidenced by my public comments in open forums as well as private exchanges with you and others. I welcomed the SLAs as a low cost alternative while company waited on ExIM and while I questioned the ability from a cash standpoint of the company to execute large EIA contracts – I said I understood the rationale using your internal relationships in China to facilitate the “last mile” of the deal with the existing structure that IR (or FR) had in place to make these happen. To say I only care about bearings is demonstrably false by simply casually perusing my post history. When going through its entirety, it just becomes ridiculous.
I did not sell any shares on the pumped up run to 74 as I was looking long term and was disciplined as a long term investor (not a short term trader) to wait out the highs and lows. Obviously that was a major miss in hindsight. That approach has served me well in general. I have been repeatedly attacked and mocked by IR (as have others) for that approach even when I specifically laid that approach out BEFORE the run even occurred. I find it ironic and disconcerting that you would lambast me (especially in light of the documented evidence disputing your premise) and defend IR/Muse when they repeatedly told shareholders they were stupid for investing/believing in you/your plan. You publicly stated numerous times via twitter that the balance sheet was accumulated deficit not debt even though IR/Muse constantly ragged on shareholders that they were buying into a company with all of that debt, no revenues, and a failed business plan. They routinely implied (sometimes even more direct) that they “saved” the company and you from yourself while mocking shareholders for believing in what you told them (on the conference call, in PRs prior to Muse, emails, tweets, etc). Worse is when it hit the fan, you distanced yourself from them after the fact and said they were an individual entity despite the evidence to the contrary (being introduced as investor relations early on, being the “IR” contact on company PRs, using an “IR” email address with a company domain, etc. etc). How did they really represent you/your brand during their contract? How did they further the company? What successes did long term shareholders see during their time?
When did I ever “threaten” you?
All of this being said/written – I challenge you to go back and read through my posts from the beginning and see if those posts, our conversations, and the reply today paint the picture of a paid basher or a long term shareholder that routinely gave you the benefit of the doubt when IR/Muse was doing the exact opposite. I have been open in my frustrations with IR/Muse and objective with my critiques and questioning. I have openly stated my bias against them when responding to other shareholders comments/questions. Throughout, I often suggested shareholders that were frustrated with IR/Muse go directly with you even as IR/Muse mocked me for saying you were a “good guy” or that “Bill doesn’t like you anymore.” I never asked for your friendship nor did I ever convey it. What I have asked for and continue to ask for is transparency and openness about the past failures such as: PPS and OS target that IR/Muse claims/implies came from you or someone else; status/clarification of the $135MM BTL SLA, status of the $1MM SLA signed with unnamed NA company, expectations for revenues from MRVB in 2017, and a transparent discussion on share buyback that IR/Muse made a travesty out of with their tweets throughout 2016. You did address the e-bike market expectations. However, without addressing the above with shareholders, it is difficult to arbitrarily accept how the company will be successful with them.
In one of your last posts - you encouraged shareholder to hold with the caveat that you hadnt said that before. While I will take it as genuine - it also is hard to not immediately ask for the sentiment to be substantiated. IR/Muse spends months pumping a $0.01PPS and share reduction and the exact opposite happens and they attack any shareholder that asks what happened. The OS is ballooning and the price has hit $0.0001. For most - holding at this point is a no brainer due to the evisceration of their holdings. As far as no bid - that was definitely IR/Muse that tweeted that - not me. I referenced the 1-2 flipping.
You referenced big things are happening and this is expected to be a breakout year. 2016 was also supposed to be that year. That besides, if you are expecting it as such (which definitely could be the case if company finally gets SLAs, EIAs to click), then why not put expectations into numbers? They do not need to be "hard." Your post suggested there was no reason to as posters would find a way to bash the company. Asking for revenue guidance to tie "value" to a company is not bashing nor is asking a company/IR to discuss how they missed a $0.01/PPS target.
Finally – in my original reply to your first post on iHang about me – I suggested this should have been handled privately. You have my phone number. When I had an issue with what you said – I asked for a phone call – I didn’t lambast you on a message board. When James/IR went negative – I asked for a phone number from him and you to speak with him – I wasn’t provided one. It wasn’t until things had already went way sideways did a phone number come out and that was after the CC. I left one VM at the number provided and never heard back. Since the questions I emailed prior to the CC were largely ignored (only a couple were addressed and only one or two specifically answered) I wasn’t really expecting my voice mail to be returned. As you said in your post – you have been accessible and you did take my calls as well as respond to emails and texts. Even after our last conversation, I still recommended others follow up with you directly. In that vein, if you reconsider my “intent” after this post and taking the entire history into context, feel free to contact if you want to put this behind and move forward. As I said previously, it is not productive to have the conversation in this forum but if you are going to call me a liar and publicly challenge my integrity, I am going to respond and address those comments accordingly.
Sincerely - thesmalls
Posted On: 05/11/2017 9:12:01 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
I would like to clarify things. To the best of my recollection, I have spoken to Carson (thesmalls) twice. Once was in September of 2016 and once in December. In the first instance, he was blocked by IR or Muse and wanted my help to get him unblocked. I offered to help and asked him to refrain from posting or communicating for a few days while I attempted to get him unblocked. Within a few hours of our conversation he was posting again, making my task more difficult. The second conversation was of a similar nature and again I asked him to be patient and again he was not. On both occasions he was full of bluster, telling me how the company should be run, how many shares he had, how he was a long-term investor and very successful, etc. I have an obligation to listen to all shareholders, so I did listen to him.
One thing should be made clear. Carson does not have an inside track regarding information coming from me. The communication with him has been minimal at best. It was clear in talking to him that he had an agenda, much like Spuds and that nothing I said would change his mind or his objective, which in my opinion is to simply be right, even when he may not be. I find it interesting when people like Carson or Spuds are cordial in one-on-one communications, but rant and spread vitriol to the general public. In private they invite me to have a beer with them and in public say that I should be put in jail.
Carson has received no information regarding revenue projections because I haven't given them out. He has requested them as naseam, I'm sure only for the purpose to say they are wrong, if they aren't met. The fact is that at this point it's difficult to make projections, because we don't know how the e-bikes will be received, nor the trikes in Africa. We have a feel for how they will do, but not hard numbers. However, we don't think that first year sales of 20,000 e-bikes is unreasonable, which will put revenue at $14,000,000. For trikes, we don't think first year sales of 10,000 units is unreasonable, which would add another $8,000,000 to revenue. This coupled with EIA and hopefully bearings and SLAs would enhance revenue.
One thing is certain. We do have revenue for this year and expect a lot more. We view this as a breakout year. At the same time folks bash the company for many reasons. Some are personal, some are ego and some are to get people to sell so they can trade. So when IR or Muse says things like hold thru the no bid situation, that means that Muse believes big things will happen, while Carson and others believe it will go to no bid. Muse is saying that people should hold their shares, even if they think it will go to no bid, because there is light at the end of the tunnel and big things will happen.
I am very confident that big things ARE happening. We are preparing the first shipment of e-bikes to the States and are also preparing the first trike shipment. Both sets of vehicles have been paid for and will go to distributors who are already creating strong market interest.
I've not come out and said these things before, but I completely recommend that people hold their shares. Big things are happening and we will have a breakout this year. People have been very patient, but this patience is about to pay off. I'm thankful for the words of support from most people and feel compassion for the bashers. Life is too short to go around bitter and unhappy. Enjoy the short time we all have. TPAC will be successful and it will show to those who can wait.
Posted On: 05/11/2017 10:13:30 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
Let me add something. To those people like Trading Jeff and others, who claim I am unresponsive to calls, emails, messages and posts, that is misleading. As most people know, I answer almost all calls, emails and text messages. I stop responding when the question has been asked and answered several times, or when the answer would require me to divulge insider information. I try to be succinct, accurate and as informative as I can be. However, I generally do not reply to posts, because I rarely go on this board and consequently don't see the posts.
As I recall, Trading Jeff is one of those people who was blocked and asked me to get him unblocked. As I further recall, I did so, so frankly don't know what his beef may be. Furthermore, when people hide behind pseudonyms and don't tell me who they are, it's hard to conclusively state I have or have not replied to their requests. But as a general rule, as I said, I do reply to almost all inquiries. I get emails, calls and text messages daily and do my best to reply. What I find fascinating is that for some people it's not enough. Most CEOs never communicate directly with individual shareholders. I make it a point to do so, yet some people say I ignore them. I cannot make everyone happy. None of us can. But I can say that I work my hardest to move this company forward and try to make all of the TPAC shareholders happy.
If some people aren't happy with the way things are going, I cannot help that. But I think it would be in their best interests, for their personal health and well-being to get out of TPAC and enjoy life. Nobody needs unnecessary stress. The Boys of Summer are here, Dead and Company are touring. While Jerry is no longer with us, the show is excellent and things are to be enjoyed. Take in a game. Have a hotdog and a beer. Pull for your team. See the Dead. Enjoy life.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 1:40:55 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Please show me one post by me where I have mentioned where the pps should be...just one
Posted On: 05/12/2017 1:47:37 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
I haven't given projected revenue, in fact I said it's difficult to provide projections at this time. I stated where I thought sales could go, which is significantly different than a projection, but of course you know that. Please read carefully and comment accurately, which you would never do since it does not serve your purpose. You are intentionally distorting what I said in an attempt to get people to sell, most likely for your benefit. Stay in your mom's basement, play your Sega and hopefully the Whalers will win this time.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 2:10:33 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Re: 4 MY T #18937
I know. It's incredibly funny though. For example, I have actual emails from Spuds inviting me to go fishing with him and have a beer. We've discussed Van Halen, since they're from Pasadena and I knew them back in the day. Then he goes off on a public tirade and says I should be jailed. It must get tough being one way and then having to step into character and do a 180. People are really funny.
But I am very optimistic of our direction, as are those who have looked at the product. I've been going to China since 1994 and these are the first products I've felt were good enough to be imported. I've liked the trikes for Africa for about 5 years, but didn't have a market entry until now. As for the E-bike, it's unique AND well-built and that's why we want to bring it in. It isn't bearings to be sure, but it is revenue. When it all shakes out, that's what matters. But mark my words, when we are successful in this market, the Spuds, Dipsets and thesmalls of the world will still complain that it's not bearings.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 11:53:17 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Let's get something straight here, Carson. I never had a heated discussion with you regarding what James may or may not have said. I was pissed off when you couldn't wait 2-3 days so I could help you, but I did not have the heated discussion you described. That sir is a lie. Furthermore, and other shareholders will back this up, I have never, and I mean never asked anyone to prove to me that they were a shareholder and have never doubted anyone who has contended that they were. I never questioned you as to whether you were a shareholder or not, so your claims are either poor recollection, or total fabrications. Furthermore, I made it clear to you, as I have done to many other shareholders, that IR and Muse are independent of TPAC and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. So when they make an assertion regarding PPS or other aspects of the business or whether the Cubs will repeat, those are their assertions and may or may not coincide with the views of the company.
As I said previously, here are the facts. You asked me to do you a favor. I told you I would. I asked you to shut up for 2-3 days so I could help you. You started yapping within about 45 minutes. Those are the facts. Your ego demands that you spew, even when it's not in your best interest. I'm not going to engage with you any longer. And by the way, I have no recollection of you sending me a screenshot and no email showing one. I'm not saying you didn't do it, but I will tell you, that if you offered it I am 100% sure I would have told you I didn't need to see it for you to prove you were a shareholder. I don't ask for that type of stuff. So while you may have sent it, and again I don't recall seeing it, I can guarantee that I never asked you for it.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 8:36:24 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
I would like to correct something. I did receive a screenshot from Carson in September, 2016. He claims it was from his account and based on the "handle" it may be. I did not request it and actually made no comment about it when it was sent. I have had two phone conversations with him and exchanged text messages six times, the last time being in early December, 2016. He has constantly asked for inside information and when I refused to provide it to him he would post in a public forum in order to try to make the information public, even though it was made clear to him that the information he was requesting would not be made public. I've bent over backwards with this guy, but his arrogance and self-righteousness is a bit too much to bear. While I understand that shareholders have legitimate concerns regarding their investments, that does not give them the right to browbeat me, threaten me, tell me what the law is or otherwise annoy me and then completely misrepresent the relationship and discussions we have had.
Bill – I started responding to your prior posts in detail and addressing each point, misstatement, or error but it really ended up missing the cusp of the issue. Why? Primarily your premise for posting/responding to my posts is completely off. Now, I really don’t know if your premise is off due to James poisoning the well early on, cognitive dissonance, or if I just misjudged you and your intentions that poorly. Doesn’t matter at this juncture. However, I will continue this response to tell you (and others) why that premise is off and why the rest of your accusations/assumptions are likewise off. You can casually dismiss it or take it to heart as there are several other shareholders with very similar sentiments, frustrations, and more than fed up with the way they have been treated as shareholders.
Did you do any due diligence on the entirety of my posts with respect to TPAC? Specifically on the iHang board before attacking me? Did you go back to the start and look at the transformation and where the posts turned negative? Did any of the shareholder comments/concerns with the choice of James/IR as the investor relations function of TPAC sink in?
We spoke live on the phone probably 6 times in addition to the various text and email “conversations.” Some of those coincided and two of the phone conversations were follow ups to conversations we had just had. Our first conversations were prior to James/IR and those weren’t referenced. The only ones that seem to stick out/you recall are post IR and specifically about the issues with IR.
To clear up your misconceptions – I NEVER specifically asked you for inside information or in any way tried to get you to divulge information in a nefarious manner as which your posts insinuated. Several times you told me that what I was asking for (which was direct followup for clarification on what was being PRd/tweeted about) was inside information or hadn’t been previously disclosed. I asked if it would be. In some situations you said it may and others you said it wouldn’t be (like the BTL contract). To say or imply otherwise is simply false. We actually had a conversation on inside information and the general misunderstanding of having access to it and acting upon it.
Yes I did repeatedly ask you via phone, text, email, and SM about revenues. I do that with any mgmt/fiduciary of companies I invest in trying to understand the timelines and likelihood between what is announced/PRd and reality with respect to the business environment. You pushed back and took issue with my insistence. I followed up the importance of getting out in front of the shareholders since IR was talking about large contracts (BTL SLA for $135MM) that were not being followed up by the company or in any official PR. MANY shareholders bought/increased positions based on those numbers as it seemed to be a ratification of not only the earlier business plan concepts but the newly “reconstructed” company after the 90 days transitioning from a manufacturer to an SLA provider and the cost/time benefit of being so. However, while James was adamant that the $13.5MM/year was guaranteed in the conference call – shareholders could not get confirmation from the company/you that it was as concrete as James shared on the CC and in repeated tweets following up to the CC and afterwards. Further, the EIA contracts being thrown out (primarily in social media but also through some limited detail PRs/NEW) were throwing out some ridiculously large numbers ($BB for a company that had no revenues) and the disconnect between floating these for a company with no cash flow needed clarification.
As far as James/IR – they refused to provide a phone number early on. I asked several times as their emails became more inflammatory/accusatory (several of which you were CCd on). They refused to provide one saying it was none of my business. When we spoke on the phone (prior to the two times you referred to in your posts), I asked for a phone number to speak with James/IR (at that point – I didn’t know who was responding to the emails). You and I discussed the importance of speaking by phone when conversations go sideways in emails/texts in one of those two calls you did reference. I asked you for the phone number so I could speak with them and stop the escalation that was occurring via email. You said you were not going to provide a phone number due to past issues with shareholders harassing people (primarily Timken at that point). We then discussed your prior conference call and the group trying to disrupt that call. It was after that call that IR/Muse started attacking me in the public forum as well as starting blocking shareholders.
When we had the follow up call about the blocking which was the 1st call you referenced (and after we had spoken several times on the phone prior), I was NOT asking you for a "favor" to get me unblocked. We discussed their treatment of shareholders and I addressed that it was damaging brand/credibility and flirting with (if not completely violating) SEC disclosure rules about selective disclosure since the company chose them as the IR source and was using Twitter as an official news/information dissemination platform. You disagreed and said they were completely separate. I asked how they could be when using the same domain and were referenced as the IR contact on PRs? You said they were contracted but not part of the company. I asked what the discernible difference was for shareholders. Either way, you agreed to speak to James to discuss the blocking (and not just the blocking of me).
On the original phone call where you and I discussed James/IR and my issues with them – you told me specifically on the phone that another shareholder had recommended this group for Investor Relations and that you previously had no/limited success with PR firms that you had hired – that they were just looking for money/shares and not interested in really doing PR (something along those lines). We discussed that James’ group was not a traditional PR outfit and you explained in some detail what their group and the doors they were opening (such as EIA opps) despite some of the difficulties in working with them (such as your conversations with them or their treatment of shareholders).
In the original conversation about IR – I also asked how they were compensated and you said you wouldn’t answer that. You said it wasn’t important for shareholders and that I didn’t have a right to ask. I countered with being a shareholder that any money the company spent was being spent by the shareholders and it was important to understand if their interests and ours were aligned. You took exception to that point and that led into our discussion on the OTC in general with respects to expectations of short term shareholders/flippers, bashers, toxic debt, and message boards. I made some suggestions in terms of communication with shareholders in general (specifically those that were long term holders and NOT the day traders) and emphasized the impact your original CC had on them. At that time you told me that there were only 6-12 large shareholders like myself that seemed interested in that information and that they called with questions. I told you at that time (and will still give you credit as I have in the past) that you did make yourself available for these calls/questions but the conversation went back to disclosure. I said that individual calls did not allow for some of the pertinent questions/discussion specifically around revenues (which are key for start ups or those transitioning out of R&D stage). You said you understood and would consider that going forward.
You refused to discuss their compensation as I addressed above but you did say along the lines that they would do very well if the company did well. You said you learned to tie these groups to performance (as you said past PR/IR groups just took the money/shares/options and ran). Since the stock is trading WELL below when they started ($0.0002 and it was around $0.0016-0.0018 when they started) and there are close to 3 times as many outstanding shares – I have to question whether that statement still stands since their contract has ended. In hindsight, I would argue my wanting to know the general tenets of their compensations were not only valid but also could have allowed several shareholders (including myself) to react/respond differently had that been more transparent especially in light of the way they treated shareholders both publicly and privately.
With respect to the above – there was never any “bluster” or me telling you how to run the company. That again is either due to the poisoning of the well or narrative after the fact. We had several in depth discussion about the bashers on iLie, unrealistic shareholder expectations or questions (specifically around putting out share price targets which I will address later), and your consistent insistence that this was a long term endeavor (which led into discussion on some of your professional contacts/potential competitors wondering how you were able to achieve NAVAIR status in not only as short of time as you did but at a reduced cost – you told me one had $8MM (if memory serves – I didn’t have the exact number in my notes – just $MM)). I agreed that it was a long term endeavor and that is when we discussed the original business plan targets in some detail. You couldn’t go into much due to disclosure but at that point – it wasn’t an issue. At no time did I tell you how to run your business or bluster about.
As far as arrogance – using specific models for risk/reward and trying to validate those with those that have intimate knowledge of likelihood of success is not being arrogant. Me telling you about my background in investing/professionally background was not being arrogant. It was providing a basis/premise for my questions (both in nature and in tone). I never invited you to BBQs or any of that BS you referenced with spuds. Was I friendly – yes. Was I cordial – yes. Is that common sense when speaking with someone and getting to know them – yes. Go back and read my posts from the beginning. Note how many times I suggested shareholders contact you directly and that you had always made yourself available to me through various channels (even after your first lambasting of me on here I noted in my reply that you were accessible). And yes our last conversation was “heated.” At least – when someone is yelling at me on the phone and accusing me of going around their back or pushing them too far – I consider that “heated.” If you don’t – then we can apply whatever adjective you want.
However, in that last conversation, you were pissed about the first conversation you referenced (when we discussed disclosure and you said you would speak with James) and then about a subsequent text conversation when you responded that you would not provide the information I was requesting. I countered with it being critical for shareholders specifically due to the disconnect between what IR/Muse was tweeting and you replied that you wouldn’t because it was inside information. I then asked you via Twitter which you then texted me back and accused me of pushing you which is ultimately what prompted what ended up being our last phone call. I asked to speak by phone as the text conversation was going sideways. You agreed and we spoke in which you yelled at me for the original James blocking and then trying to go around you on Twitter and putting you on the spot. Just like on my reply to your original iHang post – I told you on the phone that was NOT my intent. I apologized for that and said my understanding of your text reply was that you could not answer the question as it was inside and would be selective disclosure. Since I prefaced the original question (s) as coming from me and shareholders in the group which I spoke with – I sent you the tweet so it was in the public domain and could be responded to appropriately. Again, I apologized immediately by phone for the misunderstanding and you seemed to have accepted my apology as you understood my intent after explanation. You did say you were still not going to address it publicly and I said that was fine.
As far as the first phone call you referenced with the blocking/disclosure – I also briefly addressed that in my reply to your first iHang post. You said you would follow up with James and we left it that. Shortly thereafter (I would have to check but it was within the hour), James replied to my email with some sarcastic comments and I replied back and CC’d you. You were incensed that I didn’t give you time to follow up with him. I called you then to explain the chain of emails (which you had not read). It certainly appeared to me that James was responding to the conversation that you had with me with respect to blocking shareholders. After we spoke by phone – it was clear it was coincidental timing his reply to my email with respect to the phone conversation you and I just had. When I sent him my reply before you and I spoke – it occurred to me that there was no use continuing down that path and that is when I asked to speak with you to clear it up (this was after his emails/tweets became inflammatory in general). When he replied – it didn’t occur to me that he was responding in kind and NOT after speaking with you. The verbiage in his reply made it appear that he had JUST spoken with you – not that he had spoken prior about blocking shareholders. Considering the inflammatory responses prior from him – it wasn’t a stretch for me to assume that he had just gotten off the phone with you as a follow up to the conversation you and I just had. We both jumped to conclusions at several points over the last 6-9 months. I apologized both times on my end.
While we both have had our frustrations and jumped to conclusions – I stand behind my comments and others with respect to a large amount of this was self induced through the reluctance of reeling in IR/Muse earlier. It is rather trite accusing me of being “arrogant” when your own IR group publicly attacks ANY shareholder or potential investor for “questioning” their information or asking for clarification. They have repeatedly gone out of their way telling everyone how successful MRVB is, their ARC, etc yet there are ZERO public, verifiable results. After the way they treated me and others (including the harassing phone calls I shared with you), why in the world would I entrust them with any further information let alone capital?
As far as sending you my statement – your tone is disingenuous as best when you concede it “may have” been from my account. You are absolutely correct you did NOT ask for it. However, I did NOT share it out of bluster, self importance, ego, or impact – YOU directly questioned whether or not I was even a shareholder as you SPECIFICALLY told me James said I was NOT and was part of the iLie crew. I IMMEDIATELY sent you a screenshot of the account with my NAME on it to verify not only that I was a shareholder but also I wasn’t a daytrader looking for a quick flip (at that time – the daily average was well below my holdings and it would have been very difficult to liquidate without completely tanking price). No you didn’t ask for it. But you did directly challenge my standing as a shareholder not to mention my integrity (with respect to questioning James/IR and how they were connected to the company). It was clearly from my account as I sent it immediately after you questions my standing and it was sent as a clear rebuke to the narrative that James/IR was providing you (or that you were providing me from them).
Going back to revenues – the company still hasn’t addressed the major disconnect between the $135MM BTL SLA that James/IR discussed on CC and repeatedly in tweets and where that stands. You did mention in your posts that there will be revenues this year and that the company is growing which remains positive. However, in light of the failures last year and the treatment of shareholders by IR/Muse for asking basic questions or trying to get clarification on something as simple as the “guaranteed” $13.5MM/year for 10 year as a baseline for revenues going forward – is it a stretch to think shareholder may “question” the legitimacy or veracity of those “revenues” you referenced? In both private and public comments – I emphasized that long term shareholders wouldn’t crucify company for missing guidance as long as there was solid rationale and the company was continuing to move forward long term. Right now, I would argue shareholders can ask those questions without being “abusive.” The company has so far not addressed that major disconnect with the $135MM BTL SLA or the $1MM SLA that was signed/PRd towards the end of 2016. Now they are supposed to digest and accept $10MM+ in revenues selling ebikes as a distributor…?
To address your comments about me only caring about bearings – that again is false as would be evidenced by my public comments in open forums as well as private exchanges with you and others. I welcomed the SLAs as a low cost alternative while company waited on ExIM and while I questioned the ability from a cash standpoint of the company to execute large EIA contracts – I said I understood the rationale using your internal relationships in China to facilitate the “last mile” of the deal with the existing structure that IR (or FR) had in place to make these happen. To say I only care about bearings is demonstrably false by simply casually perusing my post history. When going through its entirety, it just becomes ridiculous.
I did not sell any shares on the pumped up run to 74 as I was looking long term and was disciplined as a long term investor (not a short term trader) to wait out the highs and lows. Obviously that was a major miss in hindsight. That approach has served me well in general. I have been repeatedly attacked and mocked by IR (as have others) for that approach even when I specifically laid that approach out BEFORE the run even occurred. I find it ironic and disconcerting that you would lambast me (especially in light of the documented evidence disputing your premise) and defend IR/Muse when they repeatedly told shareholders they were stupid for investing/believing in you/your plan. You publicly stated numerous times via twitter that the balance sheet was accumulated deficit not debt even though IR/Muse constantly ragged on shareholders that they were buying into a company with all of that debt, no revenues, and a failed business plan. They routinely implied (sometimes even more direct) that they “saved” the company and you from yourself while mocking shareholders for believing in what you told them (on the conference call, in PRs prior to Muse, emails, tweets, etc). Worse is when it hit the fan, you distanced yourself from them after the fact and said they were an individual entity despite the evidence to the contrary (being introduced as investor relations early on, being the “IR” contact on company PRs, using an “IR” email address with a company domain, etc. etc). How did they really represent you/your brand during their contract? How did they further the company? What successes did long term shareholders see during their time?
When did I ever “threaten” you?
All of this being said/written – I challenge you to go back and read through my posts from the beginning and see if those posts, our conversations, and the reply today paint the picture of a paid basher or a long term shareholder that routinely gave you the benefit of the doubt when IR/Muse was doing the exact opposite. I have been open in my frustrations with IR/Muse and objective with my critiques and questioning. I have openly stated my bias against them when responding to other shareholders comments/questions. Throughout, I often suggested shareholders that were frustrated with IR/Muse go directly with you even as IR/Muse mocked me for saying you were a “good guy” or that “Bill doesn’t like you anymore.” I never asked for your friendship nor did I ever convey it. What I have asked for and continue to ask for is transparency and openness about the past failures such as: PPS and OS target that IR/Muse claims/implies came from you or someone else; status/clarification of the $135MM BTL SLA, status of the $1MM SLA signed with unnamed NA company, expectations for revenues from MRVB in 2017, and a transparent discussion on share buyback that IR/Muse made a travesty out of with their tweets throughout 2016. You did address the e-bike market expectations. However, without addressing the above with shareholders, it is difficult to arbitrarily accept how the company will be successful with them.
In one of your last posts - you encouraged shareholder to hold with the caveat that you hadnt said that before. While I will take it as genuine - it also is hard to not immediately ask for the sentiment to be substantiated. IR/Muse spends months pumping a $0.01PPS and share reduction and the exact opposite happens and they attack any shareholder that asks what happened. The OS is ballooning and the price has hit $0.0001. For most - holding at this point is a no brainer due to the evisceration of their holdings. As far as no bid - that was definitely IR/Muse that tweeted that - not me. I referenced the 1-2 flipping.
You referenced big things are happening and this is expected to be a breakout year. 2016 was also supposed to be that year. That besides, if you are expecting it as such (which definitely could be the case if company finally gets SLAs, EIAs to click), then why not put expectations into numbers? They do not need to be "hard." Your post suggested there was no reason to as posters would find a way to bash the company. Asking for revenue guidance to tie "value" to a company is not bashing nor is asking a company/IR to discuss how they missed a $0.01/PPS target.
Finally – in my original reply to your first post on iHang about me – I suggested this should have been handled privately. You have my phone number. When I had an issue with what you said – I asked for a phone call – I didn’t lambast you on a message board. When James/IR went negative – I asked for a phone number from him and you to speak with him – I wasn’t provided one. It wasn’t until things had already went way sideways did a phone number come out and that was after the CC. I left one VM at the number provided and never heard back. Since the questions I emailed prior to the CC were largely ignored (only a couple were addressed and only one or two specifically answered) I wasn’t really expecting my voice mail to be returned. As you said in your post – you have been accessible and you did take my calls as well as respond to emails and texts. Even after our last conversation, I still recommended others follow up with you directly. In that vein, if you reconsider my “intent” after this post and taking the entire history into context, feel free to contact if you want to put this behind and move forward. As I said previously, it is not productive to have the conversation in this forum but if you are going to call me a liar and publicly challenge my integrity, I am going to respond and address those comments accordingly.
Sincerely - thesmalls
Posted On: 05/11/2017 9:12:01 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
I would like to clarify things. To the best of my recollection, I have spoken to Carson (thesmalls) twice. Once was in September of 2016 and once in December. In the first instance, he was blocked by IR or Muse and wanted my help to get him unblocked. I offered to help and asked him to refrain from posting or communicating for a few days while I attempted to get him unblocked. Within a few hours of our conversation he was posting again, making my task more difficult. The second conversation was of a similar nature and again I asked him to be patient and again he was not. On both occasions he was full of bluster, telling me how the company should be run, how many shares he had, how he was a long-term investor and very successful, etc. I have an obligation to listen to all shareholders, so I did listen to him.
One thing should be made clear. Carson does not have an inside track regarding information coming from me. The communication with him has been minimal at best. It was clear in talking to him that he had an agenda, much like Spuds and that nothing I said would change his mind or his objective, which in my opinion is to simply be right, even when he may not be. I find it interesting when people like Carson or Spuds are cordial in one-on-one communications, but rant and spread vitriol to the general public. In private they invite me to have a beer with them and in public say that I should be put in jail.
Carson has received no information regarding revenue projections because I haven't given them out. He has requested them as naseam, I'm sure only for the purpose to say they are wrong, if they aren't met. The fact is that at this point it's difficult to make projections, because we don't know how the e-bikes will be received, nor the trikes in Africa. We have a feel for how they will do, but not hard numbers. However, we don't think that first year sales of 20,000 e-bikes is unreasonable, which will put revenue at $14,000,000. For trikes, we don't think first year sales of 10,000 units is unreasonable, which would add another $8,000,000 to revenue. This coupled with EIA and hopefully bearings and SLAs would enhance revenue.
One thing is certain. We do have revenue for this year and expect a lot more. We view this as a breakout year. At the same time folks bash the company for many reasons. Some are personal, some are ego and some are to get people to sell so they can trade. So when IR or Muse says things like hold thru the no bid situation, that means that Muse believes big things will happen, while Carson and others believe it will go to no bid. Muse is saying that people should hold their shares, even if they think it will go to no bid, because there is light at the end of the tunnel and big things will happen.
I am very confident that big things ARE happening. We are preparing the first shipment of e-bikes to the States and are also preparing the first trike shipment. Both sets of vehicles have been paid for and will go to distributors who are already creating strong market interest.
I've not come out and said these things before, but I completely recommend that people hold their shares. Big things are happening and we will have a breakout this year. People have been very patient, but this patience is about to pay off. I'm thankful for the words of support from most people and feel compassion for the bashers. Life is too short to go around bitter and unhappy. Enjoy the short time we all have. TPAC will be successful and it will show to those who can wait.
Posted On: 05/11/2017 10:13:30 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
Let me add something. To those people like Trading Jeff and others, who claim I am unresponsive to calls, emails, messages and posts, that is misleading. As most people know, I answer almost all calls, emails and text messages. I stop responding when the question has been asked and answered several times, or when the answer would require me to divulge insider information. I try to be succinct, accurate and as informative as I can be. However, I generally do not reply to posts, because I rarely go on this board and consequently don't see the posts.
As I recall, Trading Jeff is one of those people who was blocked and asked me to get him unblocked. As I further recall, I did so, so frankly don't know what his beef may be. Furthermore, when people hide behind pseudonyms and don't tell me who they are, it's hard to conclusively state I have or have not replied to their requests. But as a general rule, as I said, I do reply to almost all inquiries. I get emails, calls and text messages daily and do my best to reply. What I find fascinating is that for some people it's not enough. Most CEOs never communicate directly with individual shareholders. I make it a point to do so, yet some people say I ignore them. I cannot make everyone happy. None of us can. But I can say that I work my hardest to move this company forward and try to make all of the TPAC shareholders happy.
If some people aren't happy with the way things are going, I cannot help that. But I think it would be in their best interests, for their personal health and well-being to get out of TPAC and enjoy life. Nobody needs unnecessary stress. The Boys of Summer are here, Dead and Company are touring. While Jerry is no longer with us, the show is excellent and things are to be enjoyed. Take in a game. Have a hotdog and a beer. Pull for your team. See the Dead. Enjoy life.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 1:40:55 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Please show me one post by me where I have mentioned where the pps should be...just one
Posted On: 05/12/2017 1:47:37 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
I haven't given projected revenue, in fact I said it's difficult to provide projections at this time. I stated where I thought sales could go, which is significantly different than a projection, but of course you know that. Please read carefully and comment accurately, which you would never do since it does not serve your purpose. You are intentionally distorting what I said in an attempt to get people to sell, most likely for your benefit. Stay in your mom's basement, play your Sega and hopefully the Whalers will win this time.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 2:10:33 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Re: 4 MY T #18937
I know. It's incredibly funny though. For example, I have actual emails from Spuds inviting me to go fishing with him and have a beer. We've discussed Van Halen, since they're from Pasadena and I knew them back in the day. Then he goes off on a public tirade and says I should be jailed. It must get tough being one way and then having to step into character and do a 180. People are really funny.
But I am very optimistic of our direction, as are those who have looked at the product. I've been going to China since 1994 and these are the first products I've felt were good enough to be imported. I've liked the trikes for Africa for about 5 years, but didn't have a market entry until now. As for the E-bike, it's unique AND well-built and that's why we want to bring it in. It isn't bearings to be sure, but it is revenue. When it all shakes out, that's what matters. But mark my words, when we are successful in this market, the Spuds, Dipsets and thesmalls of the world will still complain that it's not bearings.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 11:53:17 AM
Posted By: wrmckay
Let's get something straight here, Carson. I never had a heated discussion with you regarding what James may or may not have said. I was pissed off when you couldn't wait 2-3 days so I could help you, but I did not have the heated discussion you described. That sir is a lie. Furthermore, and other shareholders will back this up, I have never, and I mean never asked anyone to prove to me that they were a shareholder and have never doubted anyone who has contended that they were. I never questioned you as to whether you were a shareholder or not, so your claims are either poor recollection, or total fabrications. Furthermore, I made it clear to you, as I have done to many other shareholders, that IR and Muse are independent of TPAC and do not necessarily reflect the views of the company. So when they make an assertion regarding PPS or other aspects of the business or whether the Cubs will repeat, those are their assertions and may or may not coincide with the views of the company.
As I said previously, here are the facts. You asked me to do you a favor. I told you I would. I asked you to shut up for 2-3 days so I could help you. You started yapping within about 45 minutes. Those are the facts. Your ego demands that you spew, even when it's not in your best interest. I'm not going to engage with you any longer. And by the way, I have no recollection of you sending me a screenshot and no email showing one. I'm not saying you didn't do it, but I will tell you, that if you offered it I am 100% sure I would have told you I didn't need to see it for you to prove you were a shareholder. I don't ask for that type of stuff. So while you may have sent it, and again I don't recall seeing it, I can guarantee that I never asked you for it.
Posted On: 05/12/2017 8:36:24 PM
Posted By: wrmckay
I would like to correct something. I did receive a screenshot from Carson in September, 2016. He claims it was from his account and based on the "handle" it may be. I did not request it and actually made no comment about it when it was sent. I have had two phone conversations with him and exchanged text messages six times, the last time being in early December, 2016. He has constantly asked for inside information and when I refused to provide it to him he would post in a public forum in order to try to make the information public, even though it was made clear to him that the information he was requesting would not be made public. I've bent over backwards with this guy, but his arrogance and self-righteousness is a bit too much to bear. While I understand that shareholders have legitimate concerns regarding their investments, that does not give them the right to browbeat me, threaten me, tell me what the law is or otherwise annoy me and then completely misrepresent the relationship and discussions we have had.
(2)
(1)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼