Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Define imminent
What about them? In order to convert, two things have to happen. First they have to wait for six months. Secondly, there needs to be enough common in the A/S to allow for the conversion. Do the math. There aren't enough common shares to go around. Additionally, there have been preferred issued in the past and nobody raised a fuss about it. Now that there is revenue, people need to point out a negative, since the revenue complaint went away. So now the new mantra is the issuance of preferred and my favorite, that the amendment to the Q was slow in getting filed, even though it was done in less than 24 hours.
Congratulations on a solid quarter. Good revenue and the potential for continuing growth both in sales and licensing. The hard work seems to be paying off.
Please tell me where you can buy the liner. I've done extensive DD and the liners are ONLY made by each of the six qualified sources. All are proprietary, and one isn't even fabric. So who would sell you, me, TPAC or anyone else their proprietary liner system? Who?
They said they retired common shares. They retired common shares. You agree that they retired common shares. So we are in agreement. They didn't lie. And neither of us knows what will happen with the preferred.
Oh and they were retired. That is why the O/S was lower in January, 2016 than it was in July, 2015. It means shares were retired.
Ok. I understand your point. Can you offer any proof whatsoever that the preferred shares will be converted back to common or sold and returned to the float? Any proof whatsoever...Not your guess as to what might happen, but anything to back your claim that it WILL happen. You say it will happen. Prove it.
I did. The filings show a share reduction in the O/S yet you don't believe it. Prove me wrong. Prove the O/S wasn't reduced. And also prove the Timken PO was canceled prior to the PR. In other words back up you claims that they are lying with some facts. I'm not changing the subject. Just prove any of these things are lies, like you claim them to be. If they are lies, prove it!
Shares were reduced. The increase in A/S doesn't necessarily mean an increase in O/S
He said it wasn't convertible debt. That was true. The Timken PO was true. Shares were reacquired and removed from the I/S. That was also true. The bearings were made by TPAC. It was a TPAC component design, TPAC tooling and a TPAC liner. That was also true.
By your logic, if a brewer brews beer to someone else's recipe then he really didn't make the beer. If a builder constructs a house to someone else's blueprint then he didn't build the house. That makes no sense whatsoever. 99% of all aerospace parts are designed by one group but made by someone else. I think you'd be hard pressed to successfully argue that Boeing doesn't make airplanes because some of the designs are made by someone else
Please cite one instance of that
Please cite one instance of that
Really? Now give one good reason why FINRA would do that. You actually think they or the SEC would tell someone to be quiet but not shut them down? That is an absolutely ludicrous conclusion, based on nothing whatsoever. There is no evidence whatsoever of an investigation by Boeing, NAVAIR, the FBI, FINRA, the SEC, Interpol or the man in the moon.
If you can develop a self-lubricating liner that works, and tooling that works, and a bearing design that works and you can put them all together using a methodology that you develop and that works, then I suppose it's no big deal. But your rationale is like the Steve Martin joke...I can make you a millionaire. First, you get a million dollars. Once you have all of the things needed it isn't that hard. It's developing those things that is the hard part.
You need a self-lubricating liner and a bearing and tooling design that will pass stringent testing requirements. That's the key. Precision machining in this day and age is expected. It is not extraordinary. So anyone with a liner that can pass and tooling that works and a design that conforms can test and hope they pass.
TPAC is approved. They are on the QPL. That is a fact. TPAC is in compliance with the spec because they line and swage the bearing at their facility. That's what's required for approval. BTL does subcontract machining. They don't line or assemble the bearing so of course they don't need and aren't approved. The liner and swaging are key, not the machining. That can be done by anyone with a CNC lathe and centerless grinder.
With regard to Longxi. They are NOT fully qualified under AS81820. They have qualified on one bearing, which translates to 3 sizes. That's a long way from full qualification under AS81820 and AS81934, which TPAC has. They have a long way to go to achieve full qualification. So the CEOs statement is still true.
As for the SEC, I never said they aren't being investigated. I merely asked that HS provide proof of investigation since he was asserting they were being investigated. Neither you nor HS nor anyone else can provide evidence that there is a current investigation.
You have any proof whatsoever that NAVAIR was misled or that the SEC is conducting an investigation? In fact do you have any proof for any of your claims? I didn't think so.
Where does he say it is their bearing design? He said they developed it. That means they developed the methodology to make the parts. This includes tooling design and manufacture, component design and manufacture, assembly methodology and assembly work, adhering to bearing performance requirements. These are all parts of development of a bearing. Nobody tells them how to get from drawing to finished part. They have to develop parts and tooling and methodology to get there.
He doesn't claim to have developed the bearing design. He claims to have developed the bearings. There is a big difference. The design is a dimensional picture of what you want made. It has some finished dimensions and performance criteria. Somebody still has to design the parts to the bearing and all of the tooling needed to make the bearing. They also have to figure out how to get the dimensions correct and they must figure out if and how they can meet the performance requirements. If these were all so easy as you suggest, why wouldn't the designer just make the bearing themselves? Why would they go to a bearing company to do it?
How is that a lie? He told the truth. They got a blueprint of a finished part, not components. They designed tooling and components to meet the "demanding blueprint requirements". They successfully made the parts. It makes no difference whose design it is. In aerospace all you get is a blueprint of the finished part. You have to figure out how to make it. You have to design tooling. You have to figure out how to meet blueprint requirements. You have to design and make the components. Designing a bearing is easy. Figuring out how to make it to the design is the hard part.
Likewise the statement regarding any potential SEC action is baseless
No. He confirmed he has been contacted by FINRA. He specified. So your discussions regarding the SEC are meaningless speculation at this point.
Yes he did. That doesn't mean that there is an investigation. It could be any number of things. It could be an investigation or it may not be. We don't know.
Nobody from TPAC said the SEC was talking to them. So anything regarding the SEC is irrelevant.
You do know that if a complaint is filed at FINRA then FINRA must act upon it. It doesn't mean that the complaint has merit. It also doesn't mean that it doesn't have merit. We simply don't know. That's my point. Are they conducting a full blown investigation, or a voluntary interview or something in between? None of us knows. All we know is that the stock is still trading and it hasn't been shut down. Any of us can interpret it any way we like.
All that number means is that someone may have filed a complaint online, assuming the number is valid. It's a "receipt". It doesn't mean that FINRA is doing anything. Also it's been almost 2 months since the date. Had the "evidence" presented been acted upon I would think something would have happened by now if there were to be enforcement of any sort. Anyone suggesting that an investigation or inquiry is or isn't being conducted is simply guessing. The same holds true for any public company.
To suggest that Boeing would call TPAC that quickly after you "called" Boeing is laughable. Do you actually think that a company as large as Boeing: A. Moves that quickly; and B. Would immediately act upon a phone call from some disgruntled third party without having first conducted an objective examination of your claims, which would need to be supported by documentary evidence to get them to move in the first place?
Still waiting for you to provide at least one aerospace company that requires AS81820-A approval.
I answered your question so please answer mine. Name one company and please reference the aircraft and application where the OEM requires AS81820-A bearings.
No. But I have a question for you. Which aerospace companies REQUIRE qualification approval under AS81820 Type A? I will make it easy for you. Name just one where it is a REQUIREMENT. And please offer proof.
Let me explain how aerospace Revisions or Rev Levels work. Oftentimes the customer, or manufacturer or the OEM make changes to drawings or the specifications. These can range anywhere from major, such as design changes to minor such as adding a drawing detail. These changes require a revision to the drawing or specification. These revisions must be marked and are generally marked by letters such as Rev A, Rev B, etc. The latest Rev level to AS81820 is Rev D, which references passivation of 13-8 balls. This Rev level would only apply if one were making 13-8 balls rather than 440C balls. It is the option of the manufacturer as to the material they use.
When a manufacturer like TPAC submits parts to the Navy for testing, those parts must comply with the then-current Rev level, which in the case of TPAC was Rev Level C. So, TPAC qualified under Rev C. The qualifying agency (NAVAIR) will not allow anyone to qualify under anything but the current Rev level. But in the case of bearings or other parts manufactured for aerospace, this is common knowledge, so nobody says they are qualified to Rev B or Rev G or whatever. They simply reference the drawing part number or the spec for which they received qualification approval. So TPAC did not present an outdated spec and Boeing would know that.
If someone were only to sell TPAC bearings or Timken designed bearings or any other proprietary designed bearings they would have almost no sales. Boeing designs the aircraft and the bearings. They then go to bearing manufacturers to have them made. That's how the business works.
When you say "not a TPAC bearing" do you mean that they are making and selling a bearing that someone else designed? It's not their specific design? Is that what you mean? I'm trying to figure out what you mean by that phrase.
Yes they do. Total truth. They don't have 5 million preferred that are approved to convert at 1 to 1 million. But let's assume they do. That means this stock is trading at a huge valuation!!! Must be 5 trillion times better than I thought.
You're right. Glad we can agree. And the Articles of Incorporation say 5 million total preferred authorized. If they want to do something with the remaining 4,980,000 preferred they need to mention it in a Q and subsequent K. Until then, they sit on the shelf like they've done for the last 8 years or so.
The NVSOS doesn't mention 5 million preferred that are able to convert to 1 million common for each preferred. The filings mention the 20,000 Series A. The fact is that the board could decide that the remaining 4,980,000 preferred could convert at 1 to 1 or not convert and just get voting rights or convert at 10 million (or more) to 1. They can define them however they want. I'm not spreading false information, just trying to explain how blank check preferred shares work. Calm down.
That's just not true. Read the filings. 20,000 Series A preferred are authorized at a conversion rate of 1 preferred to 1 million common. There are less than 4,000 issued. The remaining 4,980,000 preferred have been on the books since 2008. They have no specific terms. So your trillion calculations are off. Depending on how the board determines to define the remainder, if they ever do, the calculation you made could be way too high or way too low. At this point it doesn't matter. Virtually all companies, whether OTC or Big Board have these types of "blank check" preferred shares authorized. They are almost always authorized when a company is formed. It's very common and not a big deal.
We do mostly 5 axis machining. We don't often buy bearings except for occasional assemblies.
It's like Coca Cola. If you buy a Coke in Massachusetts and another in Montana they will taste the same, even though they are produced at different facilities. Same with bearings. Everyone makes them to the same spec. They are either good or bad. They either work or they don't work. It doesn't really matter who made them, as long as they made them to the print. These were good. They performed better than we expected and we used them on the project even though originally we only planned on using them for testing. So good, pretty good, excellent, great, superlative, fine, adequate, they all mean the same thing in this context. The parts did what they were supposed to do. They performed like they were supposed to and better than we expected. They performed better than we expected because we were a little skeptical because they were made in China. The fact that they were made in China was irrelevant as far as performance went. Sorry for the confusion in terms of the word choice.
The Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) test facility is at Pax River Naval Air Station. That's where testing for these types of bearings and other bearings is done. I will not speculate on the size of purchase orders with anyone. Generally for a new supplier the customer will start off small. I can't guess as to what small may be for the bearing market.