active
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.
Does any one has come across a website that consolidates "good" information about reforestation and its feasibility.
I have collected articles and cases, but I have not found a decent site that one person can do one stop objective "shopping" in the subject; except the lenghty reports from FAO and ITTO, these articles are directed to commercializing and national strategies for the forestry industry.
Nothing for individual investors.
Thanks in advance for your help.
I am sure my research of the posted pricings are fair and as accurate for such volatile market.
If my calculations were so far out of reality, by now, we will have heard from Steve Brunner, telling us how out of touch those numbers where.
The fact is, those numbers are really full of hope, in the upside. So there could be more downside, as your experience having negative returns.
It is exactly your experience what irritates me with Steve Brunner and TATF.
There not a single smidget of information provided in the web site about 90% of the products they market.
The wording in teh web site "makes believe" that all trees are in similar category as Teak.
The whole design of the information is a con job. Well done, with nice words and few real warnings.
I am mad at myself for falling for the TATF scam.
I have time and I expect to use my contacts if things do not pan out when the expected time arrives. That might include contacting the president of Costa Rica and a couple of folks at the Directorate of FAO. Who knows, maybe, some one, who is respected in the field writes one of those research papers in the subject of TATF and the falsehoods involved.
Time is the best judge of the truth.
Trebol
aka Coyote
Revenue per 100 trees
Years to Harvest Bfpt $ pBFt Revenue
18 years + 1 to market 166 $0.65 1,707
22 years + 1 to market 224 $0.95 2,495
25 years + 1 to market 399 $1.65 4,333
Period 2008-2034
Total Revenue after 26 Years 9,454
Yield Before taxes 2%
Suradan
aka Rosita
Revenue per 100 trees
Years to Harvest Bfpt $PBFt Revenue
15 years + 1 to market 122 $0.50 1,220
19 years + 1 to market 199 $0.90 2,196
23 years + 1 to market 265 $1.25 3,050
25 years + 1 to market 499 $2.15 5,246
Period 2008-2034
Total Revenue after 26 Years 11,712
Yield Before taxes 3.00%
Purpleheart
aka Let it grow to 150 years!!!
Revenue per 100 trees $0
Consistent answer I received was:
Commercially harvestable trees are from 150 to 300 years old, anything younger is worthless.
For more information contact:
The Guyana Forestry Commissiom (GFC)
In its manual is full of reliable data on forest frequency, manual on Guyana strategic forest resource appraisals.
Nargusta
aka Almendro
Other Common Names: Almendro (Honduras), Canshan (Mexico), Amarillo carabazuelo (Panama),Guayabo leon (Colombia), Pardillo negro (Venezuela), Pau-mulato brancho (Brazil).
Getting quotes gets tricky using only one name.
Off. Terminalia amazonia syn. T. obovata
Revenue per 100 trees
Years to Harvest Bfpt $PBFt Revenue
22 years + 1 to market 201 $2.25 13,579
25 years + 1 to market 344 $3.65 25,112
Period 2008-2034
Total Revenue after 26 Years $38,691
Yield Before taxes 7.5%
Goncalvo Alves
aka Tigerwood
Revenue per 100 trees=
Bfpt $PBFt Revenue
18 years + 1 to market 125 $1.14 5,700
22 years + 1 to market 244 $2.49 18,226
25 years + 1 to market 355 $4.44 31,524
Period 2008-2034
Total Revenue after 26 Years $55,450
Yield Before taxes 9.24%
The information I am getting is from other than TATF.
I could not find anything from TATF.
They provide me with generalized Suradan information, that's it, nothing specific on pricing and quantities.
This information gathering comes from harvesters and buyers.
I have contacted the FAO forestry dept. and the ITTO, they put me in contact with three professors in Guatemala, Brazil and Venezuela who are consider the best in the financial viability of reforestation and its markets. I was lucky enough to find out that a person not far from where I lived was an executive in the FAO, that is helping to get "good" information.
The individuals provide me names and address of recognized and certified foresters.
Cocobolo
Harvest year Bfpt $PBFt Revenue
21 years + 1 to market 225 $4.50 20,240
25 years + 1 to market 365 $6.50 45,068
Period 2008-2034 Total Revenue after 26 Years $65 308
Yield Before taxes 10.50%
Revenue per 100 trees
I could not get a single quote for anything younger than 21 years, the average was 60 years. Mostly due to the purpose of use of cocobolo for musical instruments.
The good news is that young cocobolo is getting strong apreciation and the price increases are above 10% ayear, in this case I might understimated by 5% to 10% the total revenue if the present pattern continues.
The revenue pbf has a nice add on, that is, the FAO has arrived to an agreement to protect the few cocobolo trees left in national forests areound the planet and kicking Mexico's butt for illegally harvesting cocobolos above their agree quota.
The plantation trees are getting a very good reception, the caveat emptor is that trees need to be 50 years to be consider for other thing more than planks. TAFT will only hold your trees until they are 25 years of age.
You can check Cocobolo specs at:
http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/forest/timber/workshops/reports/MA2005/Annex%202.pdf
As you might find is that Cocobolo needs to be above 50 years to comand full market value potential.
Good FAO Research
Although, the research was done from 1993 thru 1998 the information on growth and time of production is still valuable.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4565e/x4565e06.htm#P0_0
Precious Woods:
http://www.preciouswoods.com
Very good information on the white papers section.
HTO,
You might read that somewhere, because, as far as I read there is not sale information except a "test" market sale.
Your statement is pure B.S. do us a copy and paste and let us know where it is, or it's too much for your ego.
You better go back to the office and make sure we can make money in our trees.
Fer
Trebol
Macawood
Other Common Names: Granadillo (Mexico, Belize, El Salvador, Honduras), Coyote, Cristobal(Costa Rica), Trebol, Guayacan trebol (Colombia), Roble (Venezuela), Koenatepi (Surinam),
Macacauba, Jacaranda do brejo (Brazil), Cumaseba (Peru).
Revenue per 100 trees
Harvest year Bfpt $Per BFt Revenue
18 years + 1 to market 166 $1.90 6,308
22 years + 1 to market 224 $2.25 10,080
25 years + 1 to market 399 $3.25 24,638
Period 2008-2034 Total Revenue after 26 Years 41,026
Yield Before taxes 8.78%
Ipe
Other Common Names: Amapa (Mexico), Cortez (Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica), Guayacan
(Panama), Guayacan polvillo (Colombia), Flor Amarillo (Venezuela), Greenhart (Surinam), Madera
negra (Ecuador), Tahuari (Peru), Ipe (Brazil), Lapacho negro (Paraguay, Argentina).
Based on inital cost per 100 trees of $4000 Revenue per 100 trees
Harvest year Bft $ Per BFt Revenue
14 years + 1 to market 125 $0.30 962
18 years + 1 to market 225 $0.54 2,430
22 years + 1 to market 345 $1.05 7,245
25 years + 1 to market 525 $2.25 22,444
Period 2008-2034 Total Revenue after 26 Years 33,081
Yield Before taxes 7.58%
Teak ROI best case scenario was 6.67% before taxes. As you can read on my post #218
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27750659
A1
ROI is not a straight line, at every step there are twists and turns.
What we would like people to be aware of is:
1) The Projections offered by TATF are misleading (if not outright false) in the following terms,
a)there is not time estimation when the revenue will be recognized by the investors(in the tables seems to indicate that there is such, the caveat emptor is not clear),
b)there is some money to be made as a passive investor but only if you invest in trees that are at least 10 years of age. But not in the ROIs that most investors expect,
c) the pricing in the projection tables bear not reality to market values of such age trees even the quality is of superior quality,
d)the estimated harvesting schedule in the projection table is unfeasible and untested to obtain the returns stated in the tables.
2)Other trees sold by TATF are totally untested in the market for early harvests and the buyers and sellers all agree that anything younger than 20 years has minimum value or questionable value.
(I used 14 years as first thinning, this is a best case scenario.)
3)As explained by Mr. Brunner, the projections are in the "range" and so far, those ranges have not been met. Moreover, those ranges exclude 95% of the products advertised for sale to investors by TATF.
It is totally dangerous is to buy or sell a product that has not tested market value.
The product is attractive becuase of its prensetation (that happens to be deceivign in some of TATF assertions false as we have commented in the past) , and its feel good appeal, that is the case of TAFT offering.
I am glad the research i am doing is at least of help to a few.
The numbers I am posting come from interested parties and I try to keep them to actual markets.
Purpleheart ROI
aka Nazareno
Peltogyne paniculata
Se prior notes on harvesting and constant dollar value
Purpleheart Revenue per 100 trees
Year Bft Price Income
14 years + 1 to market 2023 99 $0.35 901
18 years + 1 to market 2027 128 $0.44 1,126
22 years + 1 to market 2031 201 $0.95 3,819
25 years + 1 to market 2034 333 $1.15 7,276
Brazilian Cherry Prizes
aka Jatoba,
Hymenaea courbaril
Taking in consideration the information in post #254 and past information about constant dollar values.
This is based on 100 trees
BF Avg. Total Income=
14 years + 1 to market 2023 99 $0.69 1,794
18 years + 1 to market 2027 210 $0.93 3,900
22 years + 1 to market 2031 325 $2.25 14,620
25 years + 1 to market 2034 490 $3.99 37,145
Period 2008-2034 Total Revenue after 26 Years 57,459
ROI Before taxes 9.80%
Other Trees by TAFT
I had received information about other varieties of trees marketed by TATF.
Now, TATF makes not statement of future value of those other varietals offered for sale.
The reason is simple, as I found there is strong indication that you might lose money in most of those trees, but not in all, as long as you can buy them after year 10.
The following points are consistent statemetns I received from over fifteen sellers and buyers:
* Any of the marketed trees by TATF other than Teak "have no meaningful value before their 13 year."
* All of the marketed by TATF trees other than teak, "trees are graded, priced and sold in the open market need to have more than 30 years as an average" and "pricing for anything below 30 years is at least 50% discounted to listed prices."
* All prices were "negotiable" and "the prices in the ITTO report are for top quality logs, and that is usually done in goverment owned forest."
Shortly, I will be finishing the prices and create time periods of probable harvesting.
Have you ever got paid?
For what, from when and how much?
Still waiting for your answer.
It is mostly teak and were bought up to 2004 in small lots and the average price is around $23.
Again, so what about you.
Are going to look at the files in the office.
This will make it easy.
"Fo" Arnie
Atl. Georgia
I look forward about your information!
I think that no one else should give you more information that you have.
If you read past postings you should know by now who has what and for how long.
What are you going to do, look at the tree owners files to start a mud campaign~~~~~
I should have enough trees to buy a multi-million dollar house in Los Cabos, a Maybach in the garage, and a 60 ft Yacht. All that, if the numbers provided by TAFT were to be correct.
Why I know all that is a fantasy now, and it will not be possible, easy, some of the trees are more than a decade and half in the ground. And I am yet to see a penny.
So did you got paid?
I need some hope here.
Give me some sun.
I second A1...
HappyTreeOwner. Have you received any income from your trees? If so can you tell us the specifics.
I am not sure how you can calculate a IRR with your formula. This is how I calculate the internal rate of return manually (without a financial calculator) is a very laborious process. And it is the real mathematical formula for such operation. This is using Excel, you can do it in less than a minute. Assuming that the cash flows (from year 0 to year 25) is in the range “D$3:Z$3”, the formula to derive the IRR is “=IRR(D$3:Z$3)” without quotes.
Now that "we know" to calculate the internal rate of return, it is important to know that IRR can only be used under certain conditions. The best way to determine if the IRR can be used is to plot the NPV of the investment against the discount rate of return. If the NPV crosses the X-axis more than once, i.e. NPV is zero more than once, than the investment is considered to have multiple internal rate of return and should be used with caution.
In our case the IRR as I expressed in my first calcualtion is the way to approach ROI for trees.
The rest is just "junk math" or what some one said about Enron "fuzzy math."
Oh! Discount rate of return you can use any calculator: such as this from E*Trade:
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/discount_rate_calculator.htm
ARE WE ENLIGHTENED YET!!!!
Other tree metrics coming next weeks.......
That is, more ENLIGHTENING coming near you.
Those are the facts and I am sticking to them.
We got in the arguments about the per unit returns as posted by the TATF web site.
In forestry analysys the reserach is done by hectar.
We were sold a simplistic metric, that no one uses, and our eagernes and ignorance took the best of us with the rosy projections.
So the questions To Mr.Brunner is what are the data points and metrics per hectar.
We can compare that information with studies done about Costa Rica plantations from the Univeristy of Helsinki, Profesor Centeno In the case of Flora Y Fauna, or the Center for International Forestry Research, or the USDA with the University of Hunstville in Alabma.
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/Publications/Detail?pid=1727
http://info.frim.gov.my/cfdocs/infocenter/Korporat/2003Publications/Links/JTFS%2020(1)/08%20D.%20Perez.pdf
http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/oct102002/808.pdf
Although an earlier study the data is still relevant with the colaboration of USDA Forestry expert G.Sam Foster:
http://www.sl.ku.dk/dfsc/pdf/Publications/Economics.pdf
In reference to the dollar value.
I used the present dollar value and adjusted for inflation from the median price provided by suppliers and buyers, discounting the extremes.
Basically what a dollar buys today, does not buy the same tomorrow. Also I consider the price apreciation of wood of the past 25 years of logs and boards.
See page 47 of the following report.
http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/3498/CEM-CFI40-5-R1-US-Timber-Report.pdf
http://www.unctad.org/infocomm/anglais/timbertrop/prices.htm
This is based on information provided by other owners of industrial plantations harvesting mature trees in concession or lease lands in Costa Rica (2), Panama (1), Peru (2), Bolivia (3), Ecuador (1), Guatemala –specializes in teak for export only to India (1) and Brazil (2).
http://www.tropicalflora.com.br/tropicalflora/pt/index.php where really nice.
I used the Federal Reserve data for the 3.1% inflation and from FAO the 5.15% timber annual increase for the last 25 years.
The present value of teak is here from ITTO as you suggested:
http://www.globalwood.org/market1/aaw20080301.htm
http://www.itto.or.jp/live/Live_Server/377/E-AR06_HP3.xls
As you can see here the price in the area as reported:
Mexico per cubic meter $ 643 or $1.51 pbft
dressed upside of 50% $2.26 inflation and price growth to present 18% $2.28. No fees included
Panama per cubic meter $957 or 2.25 pbft
dressed upside of 50% $3.37 inflation and price growth to present 18% $3.97. No fees included.
Grades for different years need to be adjusted, if you say that 13 year old teak is as good as 50-75 year old teak and can command Grade 1.
Let it be so.
The ITTO chart for 1 Hopus Log FOB (1.8 cubic meter) of G1 (the best from the best forests in the world) is trading at an average for the last six months of E 2655 or US$2212 per cubic meter or $5.2 per board ft.
So It will be wise to consider multiple sources to have a better idea how the market values the product.
The most common answer I got was poles value up to 12 years.
Next, 13-17 years similar at best a grade G6 up to G4 if clean and well dried. 17-30 from G-4 to some one said that the best case G3 if it was immaculate.
I think I have provided more fact base information from independent sources that your factless answers.
Next Issue:
Yields.
I have received yield information for a good amount of species listed at TAFT web site, not only from teak.
Teak turned out to be very easy to get grade, yield, quotes, harvesting periods it turned out to be fast to receive and easy to tabulate.
Other trees are not that easy to get answers, in some cases the name description is unknown in the market; I am revisiting some of my old research and getting names for each tree in the most common harvesting areas.
The most common answer relates to the prices of at least 30 years old trees.
It complicates the situation, when I received a good amount of answers with no value for many harvesting years, it creates a data distortion that needs to be adjusted with parities.
The information about the other speicies will be share as I receive more data from the gracious people I contacted.
I researched the information considering three areas:
One market makers -sellers and buyers, from 11 market makers from Guatemala to Peru.
Two, I researched International agencies, in concrete the UN-Forestry WWF, the ITTO research papers and a good chat with retired Dr. C.F.Fryas -Latin-American Forestry Institute.
Third, from other CR companies that is also planting trees using the TAFT concept.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X1607E/X1607E00.htm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/x4565e/x4565e03.htm
http://www.metla.fi/dissertationes/df1.htm
http://www.itto.or.jp/live/PageDisplayHandler?pageId=199
Due to the nature of the internet some links you might need to re-enter or sign free for a pass word.
Also,, I could consider some of the posts here, but I consider them opinions, the industry has enough market players to evaluate the information and come up with a decent forecast and fair averages.
You will be interested in the following work of a Court Case with good information about Teak Yields in Costa Rica:
http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/envis/yiedoc719.html
A very complete study for Costa Rica Teak Yields published on Science Direct:
http://tinyurl.com/2ek7fl
Or read the best Journal in the subject:
“Forest Ecology and management”
If your local library or School has access to the educational service of sciencedirect.com you print the research for information and I guess education.
Still sunny here.......
I will gladly go over with your all the information I posted where it comes from and how net numbers came to life.
Let’s start with the tough one.
Taxes.
You asked about the capital gain taxes why I used such high number, when present taxation is 15% for long term investment.
In two years that will change as the Tax Reconciliation Act is expiring.
http://www.cunninghamfinancial.com/taxes/capital_gains.html
Most experts expect to come back at least to its old form of 20% and 28%. It was 2001 when Bruce Barlett, President Reagan economic advisor and President Bush Treasury advisor wrote:
http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2001/bb121201.html
My assumptions are base in a long term investment and the realities of taxation.
If trees take 25 years to grow and an extra year to market, it will be fair to consider trends that affect taxation for the past 50 years and create a model based on The Inspector General for the IRS information and other research: http://www.treas.gov/tigta/index.shtml.
As near as when the first tree was planted at TATF the long term capital gains where above 33% and up to 48%.
If you consider the past 50 years and project that into the next 26 years with its ups and downs in rates, the realities that affect taxes are dismal. Consider the present debt situation of the US, that is a bet on higher taxes going forward.
You will be prudent to assume two things might happen one is that present US taxes cannot be reduced by much, unless you cut or eliminate the MIC that is 72% of all government expenditures by at least 50%.
The IRS revenues are UP – net percentage of economic activity- and not down for the past 90 years.
The present US debt service now is eating a staggering 18.2% of all taxes collected, there is not country that has sustained such debt service without raising taxes, or going into default.
Do not forget you need to consider that by adding long term capital gains to your taxes, you might trigger ATM income levels.
See the last paragrph of the first article above.
I am going to enter into a tax debate, nor give you tax advice, that is not important.
What I know is forecasting, and when you forecast long term, you need to be prudent and assume at least your curve will be parabolic at the extremes and the median of your wave trend will be an indicator for the averages over forward time periods.
I could answer, if people will be getting pay every seven years from TAFT, anyone who got paid until 2001 tax filling paid at least 28% if not the top rate like in my case of 36.5% for long term capital gains.
The experts are divided 50-50 over the TRA will to pass next time around and my 28% sounds very cautious.
My 28% is a prudent and fair assumption and I am sticking to it. BEtter safe than sorry, as we are learning.
In case the TRA gets renew for another five years, those whom collect in those years, cheer up, but the difference in the ROI for that period will be a meager 2.7 percentage points.
We might disagree in the philosophy but the facts are what they are, people die believing in ferry tales.
Next post will be about Yields and Pricing......
Happy Easter from the the beautiful Caribe.
Avan,
As of now it means, you are stuck with a very poor tree investment, if you bought any.
If you think what it has happened to you fits the following definition:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraud
You have the choice of following A1 advice, on his post # 186 about contacting regulators and authorities.
Furthermore, you might not be able to generate the revenue stated by TAFT at any time.
Some can still make some money if they bought trees that were more than 10 years old for less than $50 per unit.
As long the present housing slump does not last another three years.
I am afraid this economic situation will last a decade or more, smarter people than myself such as Prf Shiller author of "Irrational Exuberance" and the Case-Shiller metrics.
http://www.macromarkets.com/csi_housing/sp_caseshiller.asp
Announcements by Fed on economic growth seems to have been so of the mark that one has to question if they purposefuly cooked numbers, the past five years seem to prove it.
Today, I received good information from six different parties.
Two companies from Guayana gave me good information about their sales of Green and Purpleheart from Goverenment own land.
That will allow me to create returns for other type of trees.
All of them agree that anything less than 13 years of age the best use is poles. They also loved to explain their "value added products" and their finish grade (sanded) boards that was double than the log price.
I received good information from a very nice Guatemalan seller who sells most of his wood to an Indian company specializing in "domestic" funishings of teak for export; I had the impression he meant "low-end". He said he sales the 20 year teak at $290 per Cubic meter stump (424 bft per cubic meter) and assured me it is a real good price for stump in this area. He said that his 20 years old yield and average of 300 bftpt becuase "he loves them so much".
I wish I had done all this work before.
I hope this information benefits others.
Actual Owners Revenue and present market prices adjusted for inflation and the same 6% assumption of price growth over the total growth period.
I have follow the same assumptions in TAFT Projections table
It does not account for taxes
It does considers a Standard deviation of 3.5% inflation
that is the value of money loses over time
The discrepancy is large enough to stir away many investors.
Tripple A tax free insured bonds will provide better yield over time.
It does not consider delay in receiving income from later thiinings or other possible variables not considered in TATF projections. But I will be glad to run any spreadsheet with any variable people ask me.
100 Teak Trees Initial Cost $4000
Market Income
BFpT -- $ per Bf-- $pT -- Rev/Period
7 years + 1 to market 19.2-- $0.59 $11 $275
10 years + 1 to market 33.5-- $0.62 $21 $378
13 years + 1 to market 84-- $1.25 $105 $1,575
17 years + 1 to market 187-- $2.09 $390 $3,900
21 years + 1 to market 262-- $2.99 $783 $4,698
25 years + 1 to market 381-- $3.60 $1,371 $15,081
Total Revenue after 26 Years $25,907
Yield Before taxes 6.67%
Federal Taxes 28% $7250
Ntl. Avg. State Taxes 7.25% $1878
Net Revenue = $16 779
Net Yield After Taxes = 4.8%
Below is a link to get all quotes you might need.
http://www.globalwood.org/trade/viewofferex.asp
If you need specific bids go to the link
http://www.globalwood.org/service/help_RFQ.htm
If you need more buyers and sellers I can post specific areas you might be looking for.
A1 as you suggested I have contacted the IC3 and I will be meeting with local detectives to get some advice how to proceed.
I have receive an email from another investor who asked me if I will be willing to go to Costa Rica with him to "clear some things up."
As I posted before, the problem arises when the timing for the income is so far out touch with reality that makes this whole thing a very poor investment. "We trusted" the information provided. We also failed to fully understand were the lies were hidden, or why the lack of information was so important.
You also said that there is some value but not what is stated in the projection page, now is totally obvious.
I will be running spread sheet with actual quotes and the expected timing of thinnings and post the information here.
Regards
Flo T
Dear Mr. Steve Brunner,
When I stump over this web site, I thought it was another internet hole in the wall.
I admire the time you take to answer questions.
Therefore, I will continue the conversation in this board.
You law education shows your ability to craft excellent answers.
I have a few requests:
Please post market prices and approximate dates for income on all varieties of products you sell. This information is available from buyers and for sure you have enough of them available to you, to post such indicative information.
Please reflect the actual practices and the income generated to investors in your projections page.
As you wrote, TATF net distributions of harvested amount to near 1.6% of the invested capital in your company. Thus, your projections claims are not correct and/or they are misleading. They might be true 10 years from now, but today what you express in your projections page can be consider fraudulent.
With the information you have at hand the projections page it is due for an update.
You can always say, the projections are unfunded and they are a speculative assessment of returns.
Or you do consider that at year 7-10 and as you state in notes 3-14 and 15 of your projections page, people whould start to receive reports with the status of their projected harvest and aproximate dates to market their woods?
I think that we both agree that your teak projections are based on timely manner of income, with the caveat you add in note # 3. But teak is only one of the 12 products you sell. It is clearly to the buyers to understand what they purchase and you have done a good job and making as generalized as possible without much specific data and the one provided seems to be speculative. (it sounds a lot like the selling of the war of Iraq, lots of insinuation to get the buy-in but little specification and lots of make-believe assumptions)
The note on the table reads:
“3. Both the timing and number of trees harvested for the first two thinnings are based upon our actual practices here on our plantations, and for the subsequent thinnings and final harvest, on a combination of our experience and the latest published silvicultural practices derived from years of others' experience in teak plantations.
The actual thinnings and harvests of your trees will be determined by our professional foresters, who monitor the growth profiles of your trees in the plantations.
If your projections reflect the practices stated, should it be normal for tree owners to receive their harvesting reports at year 7 with the correspondent instructions.
I do not believe most people will purchase trees from you if the information you have in your projections page states the obvious. Such as what you have said:
1) Young Teak trees years 7 and 10 have very little value, with arbitrary timing for harvesting, thus the years of harvesting are at purpose of reference and it should not be consider as any indication of future income.
The market value of trees betwenn 7 to 10 years is at the present date of 3/15/2008 an average of $0.60 p/b/ft less $0.29 in expenses for net of $.31 or around $9.65 per tree (this is an actual average quote I received three sellers and four buyers).
This information should be revised every six months. – It should not be that difficult to update this every 6 months. Thus, investors should consider at least years 13 after planting to receive any income.
2) Harvesting for year 7 and 10 year tree thinning is indicative and investors should consider in their projections up to 3 years delay in harvests due to operational and other factors.
3) Raleo will buy at the above stated prices of $ 2.51 and $3.16 but it will be determined by demand of wood from Raleo, as of now, is our experience is that Raleo has at least 4-5 years to catch up to buy the early 7 and 10 year available from present owners. We expect in the future to increase our volume, that is our strategy, but there is not guarantee that volumes will change at any time.
The above three assertions are based on your comments and the information you provide in your web site, 13 thru 16:
13. Net profit per harvest is your estimated net cash flow from each harvest if you have us sell your trees, arrived at by subtracting our care and management fee from the net harvest proceeds.
14. Especially for the earliest thinnings, it would be good to anticipate as much as a year or more delay from the time of the thinning harvest until your lumber is milled, dried, and marketed if that is your wish. This anticipated delay is incorporated into the calculations of the IRR for the first and second thinnings.
15. Cumulative net proceeds is a running total of your estimated cash flow from the harvests of your trees if you have us sell your lumber.
16. The internal rate of return, or IRR, is the calculation of the annual compound yield from the projected cash flow if you have us sell your lumber for you, based on the 100-tree price of $4,992 per 100 teak trees. Lower tree prices for higher quantities would result in a higher projected IRR.
Steve, If TATF have distributed $800,000 to tree owners as you assert, and TATF have planted 2,000,000 trees with and average income per tree of $29.9 -as average that I keep- over the last 12 years. You have received from tree owners at least $50 Million dollars.
I believe you are an honest person, thus please adjust the information.
I will be interested to read comments from others who thought your projections meant to wait 15 years to receive a check.
Part 2
In relation to the price of non teak trees you market, it should be easy to find a fair market value and thinning schedules.
Market prices can be received from ITTO and open market requested quotes.
It should not be difficult every six months or so demand a quote from others about the trees you grow, to be used for investors, as guide of what the open market is paying for their investments. At least post the results as "informational" and non-indicative of future results. That will be better than insinuating – or asserting in person as you did to me no once but a few times- by omission as in your web site, that those other trees might have similar return in some cases superior than the teak projections.
I am learning the hard way that is not the case.
When I asked you about the Mix trees and the Supra, you said, "in general they have similar cash flow than your Teak and similar thinning schedules." I have not receive any notice that you have change your view on those projections.
A "fair" assessment of ROI for those other products will be helpful, adding the known standard deviation in price and age for such trees -as you refer in your Web site- the ITTO has those market prices.
Steve, I learn from your comments here, that most trees with less than 15 years have minimal value -there is not an indication in web site of their thinning schedule- nor will create any meaningful ROI until they reach at least 20 years.
Based on your own comments here, the owners of Teak (I wonder the owners of premium an supra mixes) have to wait much more than the 7 years you schedule in your web site - the projections page- it seems the reality to be up to 15 years - based on some of the happy owners statements- and your comments to others. That indicates that there is insinuated or innaccurate information that misleads investors.
The ROI expectations that you post are not indicative of any real ROI based on of your own statements of payments to owners.
Thus, I will suggest you change your web information.
It seems that my worse nightmare is becoming true.
As you can assume I am not going to wait for a response.
Due to answers I receive from your office about my trees, which are already over your estimated time for thinning by three years. It is starting to smell more than fishy.
Moreover, I will immediately contact my attorney general and other authorities to see if the information you provide to investors amounts to the following definition "All multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to get an advantage over another by false suggestions or suppression of the truth. It includes all surprises, tricks, cunning or dissembling, and any unfair way which another is cheated."
As A1 said, the trees have some value, but far much less that what is claimed in the web site. Much less, thus far that is my experience.
Some one mentioned Oxigen Investments.
O I of England, well, that really is a fake it until you make it operations of two guys in a bedroom.
These people own nothing of what they claim.
Dear Steve,
I am afraid the critics here have a good share of truth and substantiated claims.
My experience, so far, is equal if not superior (due to the large amount of money that I entrusted you) to their comments and frustrations.
I am not sure if this is the right forum to write the following, but as some one that is feeling uneasy, I think that it will be helpful for others before the jump to write a check.
I thought, I asked you the right questions, and I did some decent research before I send you my first check.
Today, I am not so sure if I received truthful answers.
Still hope that most of what you claim is the truth, but I am having a hard time reconcile what you claim and your website claims, with the reality of the facts and actual answers I receive from TATF about thinning, expected sale and $ value of the wood.
Steve, you market all kind of trees in your web site, but there is not a single indication of ROI for those trees except for Teak.
It is obvious to me that the teak information is far away from actual reality. My personal ROI due to the schedule that I received from your office is $0.
A1 past posting projections are more in tune with my experience than the projection you have in your web site. That’s hurting me to say.
It will be helpful if you add and post information in your web site related to the other products you market, as you do with the teak.
Please, be more realistic with the teak projections.
Clearly, the information in your web site is off base on your projections by many thousands of dollars and many years of ROI, it seems I am not alone feeling the pain of such error.
Your web site indicates in the Projections page that those prices “Raleo” can pay after year 7 plus are far higher than the market but it can take “up to one year for drying and processing“ the fact is, so far your told us the present experience is, that it can take up to five years more that is 12 years not 7. A correction is warranted in your projections to reflect the reality of those "worthless" trees.
You must correct that in your web site.
Any ROI with a 5-7 year error estimation is grossly misleading, unless you can prove that the projections you claim have been paid on an average to those investors in that projection range. My guess is that for you to disclose such information will need to be due to a police or interpol intervention of your boooks, other wise I understand that you will not disclose such information, but I will trust you if you say the case is, that most people owning teak get money in the renge of 7-9 years at a higher rate than $0.623 cents per board foot the local market pays.
Steve, in your comments here it seems not to be the case for investors receive after 7-9 years any check, it seems near 13 years, and to be more accurate at much lower $ per board. This does not account the loss value to inflation and paralyzed capital.
(Continued)
Dear Steve,
I am afraid the critics here have a good share of truth and substantiated claims.
My experience, so far, is equal if not superior (due to the large amount of money that I entrusted you) to their comments and frustrations.
I am not sure if this is the right forum to write the following, but as some one that is feeling uneasy, I think that it will be helpful for others before the jump to write a check.
I thought, I asked you the right questions, and I did some decent research before I send you my first check.
Today, I am not so sure if I received truthful answers.
Still hope that most of what you claim is the truth, but I am having a hard time reconcile what you claim and your website claims, with the reality of the facts and actual answers I receive from TATF about thinning, expected sale and $ value of the wood.
Steve, you market all kind of trees in your web site, but there is not a single indication of ROI for those trees except for Teak.
It is obvious to me that the teak information is far away from actual reality. My personal ROI due to the schedule that I received from your office is $0.
A1 past posting projections are more in tune with my experience than the projection you have in your web site. That’s hurting me to say.
It will be helpful if you add and post information in your web site related to the other products you market, as you do with the teak.
Please, be more realistic with the teak projections.
Clearly, the information in your web site is off base on your projections by many thousands of dollars and many years of ROI, it seems I am not alone feeling the pain of such error.
Your web site indicates in the Projections page that those prices “Raleo” can pay after year 7 plus are far higher than the market but it can take “up to one year for drying and processing“ the fact is, so far your told us the present experience is, that it can take up to five years more that is 12 years not 7. A correction is warranted in your projections to reflect the reality of those "worthless" trees.
You must correct that in your web site.
Any ROI with a 5-7 year error estimation is grossly misleading, unless you can prove that the projections you claim have been paid on an average to those investors in that projection range. My guess is that for you to disclose such information will need to be due to a police or interpol intervention of your boooks, other wise I understand that you will not disclose such information, but I will trust you if you say the case is, that most people owning teak get money in the renge of 7-9 years at a higher rate than $0.623 cents per board foot the local market pays.
Steve, in your comments here it seems not to be the case for investors receive after 7-9 years any check, it seems near 13 years, and to be more accurate at much lower $ per board. This does not account the loss value to inflation and paralyzed capital.
(Continued)