Correction - in the paragraph below: "Bill shou
Post# of 22940
(Total Views: 408)
Posted On: 10/28/2017 7:53:36 PM
Re: thesmallsV2 #19701
Correction - in the paragraph below:
"Bill should have immediately corrected Jame's statements and answers on the CC surrounding the guaranteed BTL revenues and OS expectations and he didnt. Later he said they were a completely separate entity and he was responsible for what they said or tweeted. That was BS. They were listed as the IR contact on the PRs and Bill not only called them the new Investor Relations group, he said the Twitter feed was the source for company information. "
That should have read: "Later he said they were a completely separate entity and he was NOT responsible for what they said or tweeted"
He never responded to shareholders asking why the big disconnect, why they were listed as the IR contact, or to explain James insistence the BTL SLA was guaranteed/baseline revenues for the company going forward.
Still no information to shareholders on what happened to the other SLAs announced, all of the EIAs discussed, what happened with the $10MM loan from ExIM (that tbey were fking to utilize in lieu of the original $85MM applied for - later IR said it wouldnt be needed due to the SLAs and EIAs producing revenues).
Trumpcard - $500...? I wish I had only lost that or even several multitudes of that. I invested big based on the NAVAIR credentials and the unique positoning TPAC had due to their mfg capability in the area and the steep import fees they could exploit by being local and NAVAIR certified (all of which was in business plan).
Further - Bill said publicly and privately in mid 2015 and early 2016 the company was buying back shares and dismissed questions about rolling those to preferreds. When James was asked about that - he went back to the company buying back shares and reducing OS under 1BB within 8 months. He was asked fhis specifically on the CC and was asked for clarification. As other posters have said - there was no ambiguity in the question or his answer. When he and IR continued to press the $0.01 year end PPS target - it was based on revenues sfarting as promised and those preferreds being satisfied without conversion/dilution. There was no way to get to $0.01 without it. This was asked several times on Twitter as well.
"Bill should have immediately corrected Jame's statements and answers on the CC surrounding the guaranteed BTL revenues and OS expectations and he didnt. Later he said they were a completely separate entity and he was responsible for what they said or tweeted. That was BS. They were listed as the IR contact on the PRs and Bill not only called them the new Investor Relations group, he said the Twitter feed was the source for company information. "
That should have read: "Later he said they were a completely separate entity and he was NOT responsible for what they said or tweeted"
He never responded to shareholders asking why the big disconnect, why they were listed as the IR contact, or to explain James insistence the BTL SLA was guaranteed/baseline revenues for the company going forward.
Still no information to shareholders on what happened to the other SLAs announced, all of the EIAs discussed, what happened with the $10MM loan from ExIM (that tbey were fking to utilize in lieu of the original $85MM applied for - later IR said it wouldnt be needed due to the SLAs and EIAs producing revenues).
Trumpcard - $500...? I wish I had only lost that or even several multitudes of that. I invested big based on the NAVAIR credentials and the unique positoning TPAC had due to their mfg capability in the area and the steep import fees they could exploit by being local and NAVAIR certified (all of which was in business plan).
Further - Bill said publicly and privately in mid 2015 and early 2016 the company was buying back shares and dismissed questions about rolling those to preferreds. When James was asked about that - he went back to the company buying back shares and reducing OS under 1BB within 8 months. He was asked fhis specifically on the CC and was asked for clarification. As other posters have said - there was no ambiguity in the question or his answer. When he and IR continued to press the $0.01 year end PPS target - it was based on revenues sfarting as promised and those preferreds being satisfied without conversion/dilution. There was no way to get to $0.01 without it. This was asked several times on Twitter as well.
(1)
(1)Trans-Pacific Aerospace (TPAC) Stock Research Links
Scroll down for more posts ▼